NAAMAH AND NIMROD 



A DEFENSE OF THE FAITH 
OF OUR FATHERS 



BY 

J. B. TANNEHILL, A LAYMAN 

GRANVILLE. OHIO 



The New Franklin Printing Co. 
Columbus, Ohio 



TBS \n \ 



COPYRIGHT. 1916. BY 
JAMES B. TANNEHILL 




©CU438236 



DEDICATED 

TO 

That vast army of earnest Christian fathers and 
mothers who are beseeching their Heavenly 
Father that the tide which Satan has set in mo- 
tion, through the Critics, for the dethronement of 
Holy Writ, may be turned back, so that their 
children may accept the Bible as wholly inspired 
of God, to the end that their faith in Jesus 
Christ, as their Savior, may not be shaken. 

Granville, Ohio, September 1, 1916 



The following books I frequently quote only by the author's name. 

For example, when I say "Boscawen, p. 4," I mean that author's book, 

"First of Empires." The books I thus quote are as follows: 

Anstey's "The Romance of Bible Chronology" 

Anderson's "The Story of Extinct Civilizations" 

Beeeher's "Biblical Criticism" or his "Dated Events of the Old 
Testament" 

Brinton's "The American Race" 

Breasted's "A History of the Ancient Egyptians" 

Baldwin's "Prehistoric Nations" 

Beddard's "Mammalia" 

Clodd's "The Story of Primitive Man" 

Clay's "Light on the Old Testament From Babel" 

Cooper's "Evolution of the, Stone Book and the Mosaic Record" 

Deniker's "Races of Men" 

Duckworth's "Prehistoric Man" 

Dana's "Geology" 

Dawson's "Story of Earth and Man" or his "Origin of the World" 

"Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition" 

Fountaine's "How the World Was Peopled" 

Geikie's "Hours With the Bible" 

Geoffrey Smith's "Primitive Animals" 

Goodspeed's "History of Babylonia" 

Hilprecht's "Explorations in Bible Lands During the 19th Cen- 
tury" 

Haddon's "The Wanderings of Peoples" 

Hoskins' "From the Nile to Nebo" 

Hawks' "Egypt and Its Monuments" 

Ihering's "Evolution of the Aryan" 

Johns' ^ "Ancient Babylonia" or his "Ancient Assyria" 

Keane's "Man Past and Present" 

Kenfs "Heroes and Crises of Early Hebrew History" 

Kyle's "The Deciding Voice of the Monuments" 

Lyell's "Antiquity of Man" 

LeConte' "Compend of Geology" 

Marett's "Anthropology" 

Maspero's^'THE Dawn of Civilization" 

Malrhus' "The Principle of Population" 

Petrie's "A History of Egypt" 

Quatrefages' "Natural History of Man" 

Ridpath's "World's People" 

Rawlinson's "Ancient Egypt" or his "Origin of Nations" 

Skinner's "Genesis" 

Smyth's "The Old Documents and the New Bible" 

Tyler's "Anthropology" 

Townsend's "Collapse of Evolution" 

W. B. Wright's; "Quaternary Ice Age" 

Worcester's "Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge" 

Wright's "Ice Age in North America" or "Origin and Antiquity 
of Man" 



A DEFENSE OF THE FAITH OF 
OUR FATHERS 



This book is the earnest protest of a layman, speaking out 
boldly against misrepresentation, and in behalf of the sincere, 
conscientious, common people who have been imposed upon 
and deceived by many authors, writers and college pro- 
fessors who pose as learned men and as such have held forth 
theories and hypotheses both scientific and historical in con- 
flict with Genesis and other parts of the Bible, as though 
these theories and hypotheses are proven facts, when they are 
not only unproven but absolutely false. 

While my aim is to furnish the everyday Bible reader the 
facts of science and history, as they touch Bible truth, there 
are probably no men who have more need to read these pages 
than the "learned" ones referred to above who have gone 
wild chasing phantom theories ; yet were it not that their teach- 
ings and writings are poisoning the minds of our youth, I 
should likely have contented myself with the words of Hosea : 
"Ephraim is joined to idols, let him alone." 

My purpose in this publication is to strengthen and fortify 
the faith of Christians in the Bible, and to enable them to hold 
their children to a cheerful and hearty acceptance of the en- 
tire Bible, and to prepare orthodox Bible believers to meet the 
onslaughts of modem) critics who are undermining the faith of 
our people by discrediting the history and science of Genesis 
and, in a lesser degree, other parts of God's written revela- 
tion to man. I also humbly hope this publication may make 
Bible belief appeal to thinking, reasonable men and women 
everywhere whether learned or unlearned. 

I believe Genesis is the key to Bible acceptance or Bible re- 
jection. If a man believes Genesis he will not halt in his 
acceptance of the remainder of God's Word, but if he begins 



VI THE PROTEST OF A LAYMAN 

to question the facts of Genesis, — if he thinks the history in 
Genesis is only myths and that no dependence can be placed 
in its science or chronology; that man will likely go through- 
out the entire Bible with the same critical attitude, question- 
ing statements in every other book; and why should he not, 
since the entire Bible presupposes the truth of Genesis and 
must stand or fall with it? 

I am convinced that a great many most thoughtful people 
have held aloof from accepting the Bible as God's revelation 
to man, fearing that science and history and reason had to 
be abandoned, in a measure, at least, if an unswerving ac- 
ceptance of the Bible and especially of Genesis be maintained. 
It has been heralded broadcast so persistently by certain so- 
called historians and scientists, that Bible history is not re- 
liable and that Genesis and science are at variance, that many 
people think it must be so and are ready to reject Genesis 
without investigation. 

It has been a surprise to me that Christian scholars have 
been so slow to rebuke that class of "eminent scholars" who 
are responsible for the current belief that Bible history and 
Bible science are not reliable, when the truth is that no ancient 
history is half so well attested as that found in the Old Testa- 
ment, and it is yet to be proven that Genesis and true science 
ever disagree. 

It is to defend and substantiate Bible history, Bible science 
and Bible chronology and to reinstate in the present generation 
the faith of the fathers in the Bible, and especially in the book 
of Genesis, that this publication is undertaken. I purpose here- 
in to place in the hands of all those who believe Genesis a weap- 
on to use in reply to those critics who attack the historicity or 
reliability of that book. I purpose to lay before the ordinary 
Bible reader the real facts of history and science as they have 
a bearing upon Genesis. 



THE PROTEST OF A LAYMAN VII 

Can an intelligent man believe the first and second chapters 
of Genesis and at the same time believe true science? Can 
he accept the Genesis story of the origin of the human race 
and not disagree with the proven facts of scientific investi- 
gation? Can he accept the story of the Flood's destruction 
of the entire antediluvian world, except one family, and not 
come in conflict with real history or ethnology? In the light 
of Babylonian and Egyptian archaeology and history must we 
reject portions of the book of Genesis? Does evolution prove 
man a development rather than an enduement or creation? 
Do geology and anthropology teach that primitive man lived 
on earth thousands of years before the time indicated in Gene- 
sis, and are we therefore to repudiate the plainly stated chro- 
nology of that book or acknowledge that it is not to be under- 
stood by us? Is it true, as the higher critics say, that Genesis 
and the entire Pentateuch were written near the time of the 
Babylonian captivity, about one thousand years later than the 
time of Moses, and were based on folklore and traditions, 
alone? 

It is my purpose to answer honestly each and all of these 
questions and to show that geology, archaeology, science and 
history, when truthfully stated, are in perfect accord with Gen- 
esis, and that all statements about the missing link, or about 
historic or prehistoric man, which conflict with Genesis, are 
purely theoretic, hypothetic or imaginative. So, too, will it 
be made plain that there is neither sense nor reason in the 
claim of the higher critic that the Pentateuch was written just 
prior to or was the work of post-exilic writers. 

My hope and prayer is that many may read this book 
and thereby be convinced that Genesis and the entire Bible is 
indeed the Word of God, inspired and thoroughly reliable in 
its every statement whether history, science or religion. 



INTRODUCTION 



From my earliest recollection I was taught by Christian 
parents to believe the Bible, and it has ever been my desire to 
accept the Bible as God's revelation to man. 

But I early came in contact with those who faulted the 
Bible. I heard men say that science and Genesis did not 
agree and that the entire history of the patriarchal times was 
not real facts — only myths; that Adam, Noah, Abraham, 
Jacob and Joseph were not real men — only fictitious charac- 
ters. I saw in books that man had lived on this earth much 
longer than six thousand years, as Bible chronology seems to 
state, and therefore Genesis could not be true. I found his- 
torical works and many text books in schools and colleges on 
ancient history, geology, biology and evolution that were in 
conflict with Genesis. I also read the higher critical hypo- 
thesis that the Pentateuch could not have been written by 
Moses but is a patchwork from several sources finally put to- 
gether as late as 300 to 200 B. C. by Jewish priests, and that 
the canon of the Bible as we have it was selected by a council 
held long after the time of Christ. 

How could I hold to my early faith in the Bible and at the 
same time accept these new doctrines many of which were 
contrary to the teachings of Genesis and other Bible books 
as well? If I dropped Genesis as unreasonable and unre- 
liable, suspicion was cast upon the entire Bible. What was 
I to do? I felt the need of One wiser and mightier than my- 
self to guide my faltering footsteps through life. If I dis- 
carded the Bible, or any part of it, I rejected all the God I 
ever knew or could know, for if the Bible was not God's rev- 



INTRODUCTION IX 

elation to man, we had none — we were left in total darkness. 
I repeat, what was I to do? 

I believe my experience in this matter voices the experience 
of thousands who want to believe the Bible and accept its God 
but cannot do so conscientiously if the Bible is full of errors. 

But is the Bible in; conflict with truth? What does Gen- 
esis teach? What do geology, anthropology, biology, evolu- 
tion, archaeology and history tell us? 

I have found that many of our historical and scientific works 
have been written by disbelievers who, in many cases, needless- 
ly and purposely leave the impression that the Bible is not to 
be accredited. I know, too, that designing men have pur- 
posely made it appear that the Bible is not truthful as to science 
and history. I see that other men in order to appear "learn- 
ed" have held forth theories ;of life and evolution in conflict 
with God's Word when these theories have no basis what- 
ever in fact. 

I have studied the Bible as thoroughly as most men or my 
time. I have looked into science and history until I am thor- 
oughly convinced there is no conflict at all between science 
and the Bible nor between real history and Bible chronology. 
I have now reached that point where I have no fears at all as 
to the outcome of this conflict between Bible truth and its 
critics. Bible history, Bible science and Bible chronology 
have stood the fierce fire of criticism for the past hundreds of 
years, as no other book has ever had to undergo, and it stands 
as firm as ever. Were it not for the falsehoods that have 
been allowed to creep into our literature concerning the Bible, 
no one would think of questioning any historical or scientific 
statement in it. 

I have taken up, one by one, in past years, every criticism 
of Genesis that I have heard and not one of them has proven 



X INTRODUCTION 

to be a valid objection. "The Mistakes of Moses" have 
long since proven to be the "mistakes of Ingersoll," and both 
before and since his day each and every objection raised 
against the truthfulness of the Bible has been successfully an- 
swered. In the proper place, in this book, all these criticisms, 
so far as I have ever heard of them, shall be taken up and 
a satisfying answer given. It is chiefly because of the fact, 
that no criticism of Genesis has ever been upheld by true his- 
tory or by archaeology, that I have come to believe in the 
Bible more and more as the years go by, and this is why I 
challenge the world of critics to prove a single one of their 
"Errors of the Bible" to be a real error; one that can be 
shown to have existed in an original document. 

J. B. T. 
Granville, Ohio. 



NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

(GEN. 4:22) (GEN. 10:8) 



More than one thousand) five hundred years after Creation, 
when antediluvian men had penetrated into all parts of the 
eastern hemisphere, but probably had not yet crossed over into 
America, there lived in old Babylonia, then the land of Nod, 
(Nadu of the inscriptions) the family of Lamech, consisting 
of husband, two wives, Adah and Zillah, to whom there had 
been born three sons, Jabal, Jubal and Tubal-Cain, and one 
sister, Naamah. This family represented the culture, the in- 
dustry and the idolatry of the antediluvian world. 

The people of Nod, of whom certain members of this fam- 
ily were a part, had a well developed language, volumes of lit- 
erature, great irrigating systems, magnificent temples and a 
matured system of polytheistic religion, arrayed against Jeho- 
vah; for this family, except possibly Adah and her blood in 
her two sons, belonged to the people of Cain who had been 
driven out from the presence of Jehovah. 

Zillah (dark) was likely of the Egyptian branch of Cain's 
race, but Adah (light featured), the other wife of this La- 
mech, was probably married to him on the plateau of Iran, 
where another great antediluvian race doubtless lived. This race 
was monotheistic in religion, and cattle raising was the great in- 
dustry. To this land, I theorise, this wife of Lamech induced 
one or both of her sons to migrate and there, before the Deluge, 
they engaged in the pursuits of the people in the mountains and 
on) the table lands. 

Far to the- south of Nod, possibly on a continent now cov- 
ered by trie Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean, there lived a 
third race. In spreading abroad, members of this race, prior 



NAAMAH AND NIMROD 



to this time, had come in contact with the race of Cain (the 
proto-Sumerians). In fact, the head of the second family, I 
desire now to describe, lived on the border between Nod and 
Eden. He also bore the name Lamech. In this second fam- 
ily was only one) son who was the husband of one wife, who 
had borne three sons. This family, in many respects, was 




'BIAS* QF EDE^ AND NOP 

the exact opposite of the former; less cultured, possibly; less 
given to the fine arts, architecture, agriculture and literature, 
but intensely religious, — especially was Lamech's son Noah, 
"a righteous man and perfect in his generations." 

These two families, though so different in culture, and es- 
pecially in religious belief, were yet on friendly terms, and had 



NAAMAH AND NIMROD 3 

been exchanging family names for some generations. All the 
members of the family of the first named Lamech, except pos- 
sibly two, perished in the Deluge, which was sent on the 
earth because of the wickedness of mankind, brought on by 
a commingling of all the races, and the consequent revolting 
religious practices growing out of it. Possibly the only one, 
entirely of Cain's race, who survived, was Naamah who, 1 
am confident, had married) one of the sons of Noah, and con- 
sequently was one of the eight persona saved in the ark. She 
was the most brilliant representative of her race and was there- 
fore able to carry over the religious system of Cain's people 
to the post-diluvian races. She spoke, and wrote in cunei- 
form, the language of the people of Nod, as well as the hiero- 
glyphic, the writings of her Egyptian people. She knew 
where the archives of Cain's race were kept at Sappara 
(Pliney, page 6, 30), Erech, Shurippak and other cities 
built before the Deluge by her kindred. 

The two wives of Lamech, of the tribe of Cain, Adah and 
Zillah, had in them, I believe, the potency of three great 
peoples which after the Flood, dominated many regions of 
the earth. The characteristics of the Japhetic people lead me 
to believe that a daughter of Jabal or Jubal was the wife of 
Japheth and the mother of the Aryan race, as was Naamah, 
daughter of Zillah, the mother of the children of Ham. The 
wife of Japheth likely knew and spoke the ante-Sanskrit lan- 
guage of Iran, and she led the children of Japheth thither 
after the Deluge. Adah may not have been either of the peo- 
ple of Seth or of Cain but a decendant of Abel or of one of 
the other sons of Adam (Gen. 5 :4). 

It is not a stretch of the imagination, then, to assume that 
in the wives of Shem, Ham and Japheth was the diverse 
blood of three antediluvian peoples, and that from them sprang 



4 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

the three branches of mankind which so sooni after the Deluge 
spoke and 1 wrote the Semitic, the Sumerian and Egyptian, and 
the Sanskrit languages. All this was but a continuance of 
what had been growing for centuries. 

The influence of Naamah likely had much to do in shap- 
ing events that followed the Flood, and accounts, in a great 
measure, for the quickly developed religious system, language 
and literature of ancient Shinar, or Babylonia, and in a simi- 
lar way that of Egypt. Likewise the wife of Japheth was the 
dominating influence that moulded the great Aryan race. 

Nimrod, (Gilgamesh of the inscriptions, Kent, page 69; 
Clay, page 77) the most noted hunter of wild beasts, war- 
rior and leader of his time, or of all times, was a son of Cush 
who was Naamah's son, if she was Ham's wife. This man 
Nimrod, who inherited the brilliant intellect of his grandmoth- 
er, was also her legatee religiously and it was this man who 
openly rebelled against Jehovah in Shinar. So great was his 
fame that for centuries after his people had scattered to the 
four quarters of the earth, soon after the Babel incident, their 
mythologies and that of other races pointed back to Nim- 
rod as their Ninus, Minos, Menes, Menu and Mannus, their 
first great hero. Maspero says that Gilgamesh, king of Erech, 
was the Nimrod of the Bible, and that one translation of the 
Sumerian word for Gilgamesh is Namrudi. This author de- 
scribes this Namrudi as a great hunter of wild beasts. 

You may tell me that much of the above is hypothecated. 
I grant it, but the recorded events both in the Bible and the 
facts brought out by archaeology call for and demand just 
such prior facts — but more of this as I go on with my narrative 
combatting the vile brood of Bible critics, the modern Naa- 
mahs and Nimrods. 



CHILDREN OF NAAMAH AND NIMROD 



The Sunday School Times (Philadelphia), March 14, 
1914, published the following, which shows the prevalence of 
harmful teaching along Bible lines: 

"From one of America's homes in which Jesus Christ 
rules as Master, a bright young Christian went out to 
begin his college course in a large university. He was 
looking forward to the foreign mission field as a life-work. 
Upon entering college he plunged at once into religious 
activities. But a disturbing surprise awaited him when 
he made his first acquaintance with 'the modern view of 
the Bible,' and began to get inklings of the fact that 
many of the professors, to whom he looked up as learned 
men, regarded the beliefs of his parents as antiquated and 
not a part of the equipment of the modern educated man. 
In spite of Christian friends and Christian activities, his 
first year in college left this young student so unsettled in 
his religious faith that he began to ask what message he 
could give as a foreign missionary." 

A Christian (?) professor in a denominational college, uni- 
versity or training school who destroys the influence of God's 
Word and undermines the faith of young men and women un- 
der him, by teaching the "modern view of the Bible," is ten 
fold more dangerous than the avowed skeptic or agnostic. The 
seminary teacher who says that there is no efficacy in prayer, 
that scriptural miracles were impossible or that Jesus was but 
a man, is to be avoided as you would shun a viper. A de- 
nominational school which has on its faculty those who deny 
the truthfulness of divine revelation or teach that the Bible and 



6 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

science are incompatible, is a thousand times more damaging 
to our young people than the same teaching coming from the 
godless non-sectarian school, for in attending the latter the 
youth leaves home with his parents' warning ringing in his ears 
to beware of false teaching, whereas neither the parent nor the 
pupil is on his guard when seeking instruction in the so-called 
Christian school. Satan gets in his most deadly work when 
dressed in the garb of a saint. 

The denominational International or other lesson quarter- 
lies, coming from the religious (?) publishing house, saturated 
with these higher critical thoughts, ought to be consigned to the 
flames before the youth ever see them. The minister of the 
gospel living among these evils, content to draw his salary, and 
never raising his voice against them, is certainly recreant to 
the vow he took before Almighty God when he entered the 
ministry. 

The leniency and toleration shown those teachers in col- 
leges, universities, training schools and Sunday Schools, that 
make a pretense of accepting the Bible as God's inspired word 
and yet actually believe but very little of it, is both startling 
and appalling. It seems perfectly proper these days for one 
to teach the Bible to our young people even if he rejects the 
facts, of the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, 
as well as all the Old Testament prophecies pointing to Christ, 
and it is resented severely if objection is made to such teach- 
ers or if the inconsistency and hypocrisy of their retention is 
pointed out. A good brother admonished the writer not to 
be disturbed over the introduction of these destructive, atheis- 
tic and demoralizing teachings, saying, "If these things be of 
men they will come to nought," forgetting that he was quoting 
these words from an enemy of Christianity and 1 that it is never 
true that we should fold our arms, shut our eyes and remain 



CHILDREN OF NAAMAH AND NIMROD 7 

silent when the inspired Word of God is assailed or is about 
to be engulfed in a flood of error. Neither is it at all true 
that these teachings which are of Satan "will come to nought" 
unless Christ's loyal followers speak out boldly and work open- 
ly against this error, and we sin woefully against our God and 
his inspired Word if we remain silent. 

The State Journal, Columbus, Ohio, on April 14, 1916, 
had this editorial which reflects the sort of instruction ministe- 
rial students are receiving in very many so-called Christian in- 
stitutions. Do you know what is being taught in your de- 
nominational school? 

"Last Monday, the presbytery of New York agreed 
to license three graduates of an Eastern Seminary to 
preach the Gospel, notwithstanding they refused to af- 
firm certain cardinal doctrines of the church, such as 
the virgin birth of Christ, the raising of Lazarus from the 
dead and the resurrection of the body of Christ. They 
also refused to credit the pillar of cloud and fire incident, 
the Jonah story, and the nlanna from heaven. And yet 
they were commissioned to preach the Gospel." 

For such young men to enter the pulpit to preach the Gos- 
pel is mockery. It is a wonder that an angry God does not 
drop down a thunderbolt that would destroy not only such 
blasphemers but the churches that encourage them. If such 
young men cannot believe the Bible they should follow some 
other calling as did Bob Ingersoll who looked upon the Bible 
about as these young men do. They certainly have no business 
in the pulpit. 

In an Eastern city, under one of our largest Protestant de- 
nominations, is a training school for the fitting of those young 
people who are to go out as missionaries and as Bible teachers. 



8 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

This school was founded by godly men and women who 
yearned to give God's Word and carry salvation to those in 
our land and in heathen lands less fortunate than ours. 
This school has fallen into the hands of those who are deter- 
mined to throw discredit upon inspired revelation. The 
young lives who go there expecting to be fed the Bread of 
Life, receive this sort of poison: 

"The Bible is not a true record of God's dealings 
with his people." 

"There was no Flood in the days of Noah." 
"There is no Devil, only an eviL influence." 
"Moses did not write the Pentateuch. It was 
written about the time of the Babylonian captivity." 

"There was no fall of man. Man has evolved from 
the lower to the higher." 

"There is no Messianic prophecy in the Old Testa- 
ment." 

"Christ was not divine. He was only a man." 
"Christ did not rise from the dead. His disciples only 
thought he did" 

If these things are true, we might just as well close our 
churches. But these vile doctrines are false; how inconsistent, 
then, that minister must be who preaches about the reality of 
sin and Satan and yet endorses, excuses and condones the 
teaching of such a godless school ! 

If Satan himself were at the head of this training school and 
his imps were the instructors, much less harm would be done, 
for Christian fathers and mothers would not send their loved 
ones to such an institution to thus imperil their future Chris- 
tian welfare. 

But the most astounding thing of all is the fact that church- 



CHILDREN OF NAAMAH AND NIMROD 9 

es, pastors and Sunday School superintendents will permit the 
head of such a school to invade their midst, yes and aid him 
in enticing away the lives entrusted to their care and not one 
word of protest or warning! O, what a day of reckoning for 
those in these places of responsibility who thus betray the trust 
confided to them! 

It is certainly time the real Christian, the man who believes 
in God and his sacred Word, and accepts Jesus Christ, the 
One prophesied by Moses and the other Old Testament inspir- 
ed penmen, as his Savior, should wake up to the danger that 
surrounds his child today when leaving his hearth-stone to 
seek an education. 

Pray that Almighty God may drive the Naamahs and 
Nimrods out of our colleges, universities, theological semina- 
ries, training schools and denominational publishing houses, and 
may the Holy Spirit convict those who, in places of grave re- 
sponsibility, profess to be true to God and His Word, of their 
awful sin in uttering no cry of warning! 

The skeptic, the higher critic, the wild-eyed evolutionist 
and the exaggerator of history have attempted, from the days 
of Naamah and Nimrod until the days of Astruc, Wellhausen, 
Driver, Paine and Ingersoll, to undermine the faith of the 
youth as to God's revealed Word, but never more so than 
today. 

The following pages are controversial, that is, the attempt 
is made in this book to overcome these attacks on God and 
God's Word by all these fault-finders, from the most ancient 
to the ordinary little college professor who assumes that it in- 
dicates scholarship to endorse these vagaries. My purpose is 
to save from skepticism just such young people as the one de- 
scribed in the above paragraph, taken from the Sunday School 
Times. 



PART ONE 

A DEFENSE OF THE FAITH OF OUR FATHERS. 
Chapter I. 

HISTORY AND BIOGRAPHY OF GENESIS. 

Throughout this book I follow Ussher's chronology be- 
cause I believe it is as nearly correct as any other and be- 
cause it is the one with which all Bible readers are best ac- 
quainted. It was made more than 250 years ago before the 
notions of the critics had turned men's heads. Ussher's 
chronology doubtless contains a few small errors, but not 
enough to discredit it. Indeed, if one believes the Bible he 
must accept this chronology as almost exact, for Ussher al- 
lowed nothing to swerve him from counting dates as he un- 
derstood the Bible to give them. His chronology is found in 
all the older Bibles for the past 200 years. 

It was not a difficult matter for Ussher, or any other per- 
son, to add the ages of the antediluvian patriarchs, at the time 
of the birth of their sons next in line, and Noah's age when 
he entered the ark, to get the time from Adam to the Flood 
and in like manner to the call of Abraham and on down to a 
fixed and accepted historic date like that of the fall of Sa- 
maria, 721, the destruction of Jerusalem, 588 or Ptolemy's 
date, 747 B. C. This is what Ussher did and he thus cal- 
culates that the Christian era began 4,004 years after God 
ejected Adam from Eden, and thus it is 5,920 years from 
Adam until the year 1916 A. D. No one can take our 
English Bible, either the St. James or Revised translation, and 
mak^ a chronology that can possibly differ from Ussher more 
than a very few years, possibly less than ten. 



^, 






















< 


*> 

® « 


a 
















< 
a 




CO 
















S 

< 

X 




oo 
















< 


ri^ 


^f 
















K 

a 


"3" 


«^N 
















< 


o * 


f^4 




















Q 














■P 

4-1 




B 

















■ee 
o 




W 0J 03 







F 


•ooo 










»o 

CO 






J 














...... 

eg 


2 


UL 














UJ 

z 


J«8 

±3 0) d 


U4 














O 
© 

© 


w 


-t-> 'H 


o 














a 




^ £ "5 


h- 










0) 


fc- 


© 
j© 

8 

CD 

H 

< 
o 




d 2 o 


<-> 










(0 
0) 


ry 

K 




03 3- 


"*• 










I 


§ 




o 

o 

z 












io 
as 

oo 

h3 


CO 

05 


to 

s 

00 

? 

O 
O 


< 

u 

(ft 

I 
h 

2 


<^ 


...5 

w 

2 




03 W 02 

ft ~s 

£ B* 

* J* 
• f 3 


< 












a 


% 

F 




00 

1-( 






00 ' p o 


a: 



X 
o 




CQ 


10 

o 
as 

W 

CQ 


O 

H 

05 

M 




»"3 




to 

CO 






1 fl-1 
* si- 

<i> 2 B, 


£ 


o 


05 


o 








CO 










to,g 

<w <P 6 g 


e/> 


CO 


H 


ffi 






io " 

CO 














Cs£ 


0) 


EH 




















-< 


2 


8 






o 
t- 














5 ~"BO 
5 ^-M 


>- 

(0 
10 


< 
O 

< 




id 

o 


sr 














o o3~<.£ 

s til 


CD 




O 
60 


































! 


















- 


























CCS 



12 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

Other chronologists change Bible dates to suit the history 
»f ancient Egypt, Babylon or Assyria when they think 
there is a variation between the Bible and profane history, and 
such chronologies vary according to the fancy of the historian 
and are not to be accounted true Bible chronologies. Still 
other systems of chronology are made using the dates and 
ages given in the Septaugint or Samaritan version of the Bible, 
or they take the figures given in Josephus' history which differ 
from each of the others. Of the Septuagint, Samaritan and 
Josephus, I shall speak in another chapter. 

The book of Genesis purports to give certain facts and 
data concerning a line of the human race from Adam to 
the death of Joseph. I have, in my tables, included with 
the fifty chapters of Genesis, the first fifteen chapters of Ex- 
odus, for that brings the chronology to the Exodus, the de- 
parture of Israel from Egypt at the crossing of the Red Sea 
in 1491 B. C. 

If we understand the chronology >of Genesis; if the ten 
patriarchs named before the Flood are individuals and the 
word "year" means substantially as we understand that word, 
then the time from Adam to the Flood is easily found to be 
exactly 1656 years (see table No. 1). If, in like manner, 
we take the line of descent from the Flood to the Exodus, 
then we easily get 857 years, or a total of 2513 years from 
Adam to the time the Children of Israel crossed the Red Sea 
at their Exodus from Egypt (see table No. 2). 

The critics say we are mistaken in holding the ten patriarchs 
from Adam to Noah and the others following from Noah, 
especially to the call of Abraham, to be real men. They 
think these may be names of fictitious persons or of dynasties 
or heads of clans each covering hundreds, possibly thousands 
of years and that therefore we can know nothing of the real 



TABLE No, 2. 



FLOOD (2348 B.C)to crossing RED SEA049* BX) 

FROM FLOOD TO CALL OF ABRAHAM 427 YEARS 
FROM CALL OF ABRAHAM TO CROSSING RED SEA 430 



98 : 


...«*. NOAH — ••. 

SHEM 502: total age 600 years 


:2 


Arpachshad 438 


: 85 : 

: • Shelah433 


i 


301 

• Eber464 


o 


34- 

• Pelee239 (Earth divided) 


i 


30! 

; Reu 239 


1 


32* 

i Serug230 


i 


30i 

i Nahorl48 


1 


29' 

1 Tefah 205 


s 


130 : 

; Abraham (Called 1931 B. 0J17* 




100 i 

: ISAAC 180 


| 


60:- 

: Jacob 147 
73/* : 

: LEVI 137 
56? : 

• Kohath 188 
67? 1 

•AMRAM187 


i 

: 
I 


69? : 

180 mioses and 40 




B. C. 1491. Children of Israel Cross the Red'Sea 



Table No, l shows how Shem learned the history of his fore- 
fathers. He may have related or handed down written accounts of 
all this, to which he could have added an account of the Flood and 
500 years of post-diluvian history, to Isaac, he to Levi, the latter to 
Amiram and he to his son Moses who incorporated these accounts 
into the book of Genesis. 

The age of Jacob and the others following, in the above table, 
at the birth of their sons, are only approximated. If Jacob was 77 
when he arrived at Padan-arami, then the 73? should be 88? and 
the sum of the three birth ages following must be reduced fifteen 
years. 



14 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

numbers of years from Adam to the call of Abraham, and 
these critics only stop thus considering ancient Bible characters 
at Abraham's call because profane history so comes to sub- 
stantiate Bible history from Abraham down that they dare not 
discredit it. Formerly they claimed that Bible characters even 
down to Daniel's time were fictitipus, and they changed their 
attitude toward Bible characters subsequent to Abraham only 
because archaeology compelled them to do so. 

No one who accepts the Bible as true can agree with these 
critics in this, because the whole tenor of the Bible is that these 
patriarchs were real men just as Caesar and Napoleon were 
men. 

Why would the author of Genesis be so exact in giving the 
ages of these patriarchs and especially the age of each at the 
birth of the son next in line if he did not want us to under- 
stand he was giving us real genealogy? Then, too, the 
other Old Testament books everywhere speak of these Gene- 
sis characters as individuals. 

Not only is this true but the New Testament speaks of 
Adam, Cain, Abel, Enoch, Moses, as real men who lived and 
did things. If these "men" in Genesis were not individuals 
then Paul was mistaken (Heb. Chap. 11), Peter likewise 
(2 Pet. 2:5-7) and John (I John 3:12) and even Jesus 
(Mark 7:10). The Fall of Man (I Cor. 15:22), Abel's 
murder by Cain (I John 3:12), the Flood and destruction of 
Sodom (Luke 17: 27, 28, 29) are all endorsed by Jesus or 
the apostles as facts. If Genesis does not tell us facts as to 
the patriarchs, the New Testament is equally at fault and the 
entire Scriptures are discredited. 

But not only do those who want to discredit Genesis make 
the above claims, as to these Genesis characters, but some 
eminent Bible students, who hold Genesis as true, say that we 



HISTORY AND BIOGRAPHY OF GENESIS 15 

probably do not understand the chronology of Genesis; that 
the names of these ancient patriarchs may be the heads of so 
many dynasties like those of Egypt. These eminent Bible 
students evidently think they are driven to this view because of 
the claim made that the years figured up from Genesis do 
not allow time enough for man tio develop from savagery to the 
civilizations of ancient Egypt and Babylon, and that the time 
from the Flood to Abraham is too short for the nations existing 
at the latter time to have developed after the Flopd. The pur- 
pose of these Bible students (eminent authors whom I might 
name) is good in thus suggesting an escape from a feared con- 
flict between Genesis and history or geology, but their judg- 
ment is poor. If the chronology of Genesis is not under- 
standable or is erroneous why not say so rather than resort to 
such a ridiculous subterfuge as to claim that the patriarchs are 
so many dynasties or heads of clans? In so doing they make 
the entire Bible a mass of deception from Genesis to Revela- 
tion. Were Adam and Eve dynasties in Eden? Did one 
dynasty, Cain, murder another dynasty, Abel? Did God 
translate one entire dynasty, Enoch, to heaven? Did God 
save the dynasty of Noah and that of Shem in the ark? 
How ridiculous! 

The author of Genesis is so painstaking in giving ages and 
descent, in the Seth-Noah- Abraham line, that it is evident that 
one of its author's purposes was to give us data whereby we 
might ascertain the length of time from Creation to Abraham. 
Why not have omitted this data as was done in the Cain 
line, if it means nothing? 

It is equivalent to a declaration that we cannot accept Gen- 
esis at all and is a rejection of its inspiration and a repudiation 
of the Holy Spirit's oversight when we turn down this so 
plainly stated chronology. For a friend of the Bible to de- 



16 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

clare that this Bible chronology is so oriental (as some say) 
that we cannot get the clew to its significance, and then turn 
around and accept an equally oriental Egyptian or Assyrian 
chronology, which is interpreted so as to appear to contradict 
Genesis, is like spitting in the face of his best friend. If we 
are to cast aside Bible chronology because it is oriental, let 
us be consistent and quit talking about the age of Egypt or 
Babylon, for all we know of their antiquity is nothing more 
than speculation based on a much less reliable oriental chro- 
nology. The Bible teaches that Adam, Methuselah, Noah, 
Abraham and all the rest of the patriarchs were real men, 
and to try to explain them on any other basis is absurd. 
Then, too, there is no necessity for so doing, especially by 
students, friendly to the Bible, since the hypothesis of cer- 
tain historians, anthropologists, geologists and evolutionists, 
that man's civilization has evolved from the savage state or that 
man has lived on the earth longer than the time indicated by 
the Bible, is entirely unsupported either by science or history. 
Likewise that other claim, that post-diluvian peoples are more 
ancient than the Mosaic date of the Deluge, is an exaggerated, 
unreasonable and unsupported hypothesis. These eminent 
Bible students would undoubtedly have saved their credit and 
done the cause of Christianity much mjore good if they had 
devoted their time and energy to showing how theoretic science, 
false historic hypotheses and unproven evolution have exag- 
gerated the time that has passed since man appeared on the 
earth. 

I shall take this up, in its proper place, and give the real 
facts so far as is known from history and science as to the 
advent iof man and show that the conflict between Genesis 
and science or history does not exist, even when we adhere to 
the time given to Genesis by Ussher's chronology. 



CHAPTER II. 

FROM ADAM UNTIL THE PRESENT TIME. 

The following figures are based entirely upon Ussher's chro- 
nology, and always remember that he took his entire data 
from the Bible itself, and therefore when we say "Ussher's 
chronology" it is almost equivalent to saying "Bible chro- 
nology." 

Adam (4004 B. C.) to the Flood, 2348 B. C 1656 yrs. 

Flood to the Exodus, 1491 B. C 857 yrs. 

Exodus to the death of Solomon, 975 B. C 516 yrs. 

Solomon's Death to Fall of Jerusalem, 588 B. C 387 yrs. 

Fall of Jerusalem to the Christian Era 588 yrs. 

Christian Era until now (1916 A. D.) 1916 yrs. 



Total 5920 yrs. 

My tables No. 1 and No. 2 give the years 1656 and 857, 
from Adam to the Deluge, and on to the Exodus. 

The next period, from the Exodus to the death of Solo- 
mon, when the kingdom was divided between Rehoboam and 
Jeroboam, is easy to get, since I Kings 6:1 tells us it was 
480 years from the Exodus to Solomon's 4th year. To this 
add 36 years, the remainder of his reign, and we get the 516 
years. 

I give also a diagram of the time "when the judges ruled," 
including Cushanrishathaim's oppression. My conclusion is 
that these judges followed each other until Eli's time when, 
either because jealousy began to develop between Judah and 
the ten tribes or because there was opposition to Eli acting as 
both priest and judge, a part of the tribes chose Jair and His 
successors who acted simultaneously with Eli and Samuel, un- 



From Solomon's dtath 




975 B. C. 


H Kebob'm — • 


••• Jerobo'm t-3 


cr 


pr 


© Abijab 


© 


I 


Nadab g 


% Asa 


Baasha M 


<D 


Elah j- 


£ 


Zimri 5* 


B 


Omri ® 


o Jehosha't 

o 


Ahab g 


B 


Ahaziah £ 




E 


J oram p 

0) 




a Jehoram 




p Abaziah 
?3 Atbaliah ... 

B 


... Jebu | 




2 


<s> 


CO 


to 


CO 


o 





O 


Ml 


p 




ffl 





CH 


B 7 


2 


£ Joash 


© 


o 


SP 


Jehoahaz w 


z 


0/ 


ts 


(0 


co 


R 

en 


D 


w 


Jehoasb o 


PI 

> 


B 

g Amaziah 


B 


I 


Hfc 


<B 


H 


o 


Jerobo'm g 


O 


B 




> 


OQ 


B 


r 


O 


Interregnum W 


r 

t\ 

t_ 
m 


2 Uzziah 


b' 


Zacbar 'h ojq 


o 

B^ 


Sballum © 


CO 


Menab'm § 


a 
c 


p. 

g Jothdm 

B* 


Pekahiah § 
Pekah h 


to 
> 

P 
m 


c Ahaz 


§ 


2 


B 


a 


u 






00 


5 Hezeki'h 


Hoshea g 


M 


£ 


"'■ /fcW o/ 5a- g 1 


00 

co 


o 


wcna 721, £ 


<o 


Hi 

» Manass'h 


B. o. 2, 

1 


■< 
m 
> 

to 


CO 

2. 






g Amon 


-5 




to 


■g Josiah.. 

CD 


w 


? Jehoabaz 


p 


p jehoi'km 




g Jehoi'hn 




!f Zede&iab 




7o Fallof jemsaltm 


58 


8B. 0. 





From the Bid' 
ers 1409 B.C. 



fc-t 





; 




o 


t\ 






JV 


TJ 

m 

T! 








rt>. 





D 


o 


8 



■n 


W 


s* 


H 
I 

m 












c 


NO 


3 


a 


W 


S" 



m 
to 



To King Saul 
1095 B. O 



From Exodus 
1491 B. O. 






^5 

o s. 
fie 



si 

9 



To Solomon's 
deeth975B.Q\ 



FROM ADAM UNTIL THE PRESENT TIME 19 

til the last seven years when all turned to Samuel. The op- 
pression periods, except the first, are doubtless included in the 
judgeships. 

The next period, following Solomon's death, will need more 
attention. It is the only period where Ussher may be in 
error, but never more than about a half dozen years. Willis 
J. Beecher gives seven more years to this period, putting Solo- 
mon's death at 982. But I shall ignore the error, if any, and 
cling to Ussher's. figures. 

Above I give the names of these kings in their order and 
show them side by side about as they were contemporary. 

The kings of Israel, with the years each served according to 
Ussher, are as follows: Jeroboam, 21 ; Nadab, 1 ; Baasha, 
23; Elah, 1 ; Zimri, 0; Omri, 1 1 ; Ahab, 20; Ahaziah, 2; 
Joram, 12; Jehu, 28; Jehoahaz, 15; Jehoash, 16; Jeroboam 
II, 41 ; interregnum, 1 1 ; Zachariah, 1 ; Shallum, 0; Mena- 
hem, 1 1 ; Pekahiah, 2 ; Pekah, 20 ; Hos'hea, 1 8. This gives 
a total of 254 years, from the dividing of the kingdom until 
the fall of Samaria. 

The kings of Judah are as follows : Rehoboam, 1 7 ; 
Abijah, 3; Asa, 41 ; Jehoshaphat, 22; Jehoram, 7; Ahaziah, 
1; Athaliah, 6; Joash, 39; Amaziah, 29; Uzziah, 52; Jo- 
tham, 16; Ahaz, 16; Hezekiah, 28; Manasseh, 55; Amon, 
2; Josiah, 31; Jehoahaz, 0; Jehoiakim, 11; Jehoiachin, 0; 
Z^dekiah, 11. This gives a total of 387 years, from the 
dividing of the kingdom until the fall of Jerusalem. 

Another way to get the 387 years for this disputed period 
is to add 430 (the time from Abraham's call to the Exodus), 
the 5 1 6 and the 588 and subtract the sum from 1 92 1 . The 
Babylonian and other inscriptions quite well establish the fact 
that Hammurabi was living in 1921 B. C. and, as he and 



20 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

Abraham were contemporary, the Call of Abraham must have 
been about as Ussher gives it. 

Ussher places the Fall of Jerusalem at 588, while it is now 
quite certain it occurred in 586, but I prefer not to deviate 
from Ussher. Bear in mind that the Captivity (the 70 
years) is counted from the time Daniel was carried away 
when Jehoiakim was made captive, 1 1 years before Jerusalem 
and the temple were destroyed and Zedekiah made captive. 

The difficulty of getting exactness grows out of the man- 
ner of counting the years a king reigned, Israel generally count- 
ing both the accession piece of a year as well as the closing 
part of a year, while Judah generally did not count the ac- 
cession year. Let me illustrate: President McKinley served 
parts of the years 1897 and 1901 and the intervening three 
years. President Roosevelt served parts lof 1901 and 1909 
and the seven intervening years. The Bible way of telling th« 
total time they served might be either 12 or 14 years. Again 
many of these kings reigned jointly with their fathers, the 
years being sometimes counted to both. There were also 
certain interregnums when there were no kings. I cannot enter 
farther into these matters here, but suffice it to say that there 
is data enough given for us to get exact truth, and! it is found 
to agree very nearly with Beecher. 

The dates for these kings often found in Sunday School les- 
son quarterlies, differing from both Beecher and Ussher, are 
based on Assyrian chronology and are not nearly so accurate 
or reliable as Ussher, and ought never to be given in a Sunday 
School publication unless labeled "Assyrian." 

The next period is from the Fall of Jerusalem to the 
Christian Era, and the 588 (586) years is gotten chiefly from 
historical sources outside the Bible. On this there is no dis- 
pute, although it is admitted that the- historic criteria made 



FROM ADAM UNTIL THE PRESENT TIME 21 

use of, based on ancient Greek data, may not be exactly ac- 
curate, but if corrected it would merely push slightly back all 
B. C. dates, both in the Bible and outside alike, and would 
not disturb their agreement. 

The last period, the 191 6, as we all know, is at least four 
years in error, for we are certain Christ was born at least 4 
B. C, but neither has that a bearing on the correctness of 
Ussher's chronology. 

My outlines in this chapter and my tables show about the 
plan Ussher took to make up what we call "Ussher's chro- 
nology," and it is as nearly a real Bible chronology as can be 
made, although it may be a very few years off the truth. That 
is, as the Bible, correctly interpreted, would give us, it may 
be a litde more or a little less than 5920 years since Adam's 
career began. 



CHAPTER III. 

THE SEPTUAGINT, SAMARITAN AND JOSEPHUS* 
CHRONOLOGIES. 

As I say elsewhere, there is no history, except that in Gen- 
esis or drawn from) Genesis, that reaches, to a certainty, back 
of the Deluge. Indeed, when we cast aside speculation and 
exaggeration, we have no secular history that will, to a cer- 
tainty, carry us even to Ussher's Deluge date, 2348 B. C. 

Josephus' history begins at Creation and he gives a chro- 
nology but it is long since known that his history is full of in- 
accuracies and therefore we cannot put much dependence in 
his chronology when it differs from that in Genesis. This his- 
torian, who lived in the first century after Christ, took his chro- 
nology chiefly from the Septuagint. Archaeology has prov- 
en that Josephus is grossly mistaken as to Persian history, 
so near to his own time, and full of errors about almost every 
thing else. It would hardly seem proper, therefore, to set 
his chronology, which differs from that in Genesis, up against 
that given in the latter book, the history of which in no re- 
spect has ever been overthrown. 

The Septuagint version of Genesis also gives figures differ- 
ing in its chronology from that found in our version of the 
Bible. That translation, while it agrees in nearly every other 
particular with our English versions, of Genesis, differs in its 
chronology. While the Septuagint is exceedingly valuable to 
help us into a better understanding of difficult passages and in 
showing that no errors of any importance have crept into the 
Jewish text since 300 B. C, yet there are very many rea- 
sons why we could not rely upon the accuracy of it as we 
can on the versions that come to us through the Jewish fine. 



THE OTHER THREE CHRONOLOGIES 23 

The mechanical manner in which the Septuagint adds 100 
years to the age given in the Samaritan copies of the Penta- 
teuch (from which I believe the Septuagint was translated), 
of nearly every patriarch up to Noah, at the birth of his son, 
looks suspicious, and the mistake of inserting the name of 
Kenan, or Cainan, where there was no such person, following 
Arphaxad, is enough to discredit its chronology. Then there 
is that other egregious and laughable blunder of having Me- 
thuselah living 14 years after the Flood, as is apparent when 
you consult the Septuagint column in the first table below. 
It gives the residue of Methuselah's life as 802 years, but by 
adding the 1 88 and 600 it is found tp be only 788 years to 
the Flood. Later copies of the Septuagint are found with 
this blunder corrected. 

I am certain the Samaritan Pentateuch was in existence 
long before the ' Septuagint, but, like the latter, it comes to us 
from a people, the Samaritans, who did not have the same 
reasons for vigilance in copying or translating that the He- 
brews had. The* Samaritans did not have the same access to 
the sacred documents nor to the original copy of Genesis, as 
the scribes of the kingdom of Judah had, and the Samaritans 
may have had some reasons for varying their Pentateuch from 
that of the Jews whom they hated. For instance, in Deut. 
27:4, they changed Ebal to Gerizim, their temple's location. 
At any rate, it would show very poor judgment for us to 
discard the chronology of the careful Hebrew scribe for that 
of the half-breed Samaritan, for I think any one can see that 
the Samaritan figures have been doctored as were those in the 
Septuagint. As for the chronology of Josephus, it was evi- 
dently made up from the others several hundred years later and 
cannot be relied upon at all. 

I now give two tables showing these four chronologies. The 



24 



NAAMAH AND NIMROD 



first table gives the age of each patriarch, from Adam to the 
Deluge, at the birth of his son, plus the remainder of his life, 
which gives his total age at his death. 

Hebrew Septuagint Samaritan Josephus 



Adam 

Seth 

Enos 

Cainan 

Mahalalell .... 

Jared 

Enoch 

Methuselah 

Lantech 

Noah to Deluge. 



130+800=930 

105+807=912 

90+815=905 

70+840=910 

65+830=895 

162+800=962 

65+300=365 

187+782=969 

182+595=777 

600 



230+700=930 
205+707=912 
190+715=905 
170+740=910 
165+730=895 
162+800=962 
165+200=365 
167+802=969 
188+565=753 
600 



1 30+800z 
105+807= 
90+815= 
70+840= 
65+830= 
62+785= 
65+300= 
67+653= 
53+600= 
600 



=930 
=912 
=905 
=910 
=895 
=847 
=365 

:720 
:653 



230 
205 
190 
170 
165 
162 
165 
187 
182 
600 



1656 2242 1307 2256 

Now follows a similar table covering the period from the 

Flood to the call of Abraham. Our copies from the Hebrew 

as well as the Septuagint, do not give total ages in this table. 

Hebrew Septuagint Samaritan Josephus 



Shem, after Deluge. 

Arphaxad 

Cainan 

Salah 

Heber 

Peleg 

Rue 

Serug 

Nahor 

Terah 

Abraham (called) . 



2+500 
35+403 

30+403 
34+430 
30+209 
32+207 
30+200 
29+119 
130+ 75 
75 



2+500 
135+400 
130+330 
130+330 
134+270 
130+209 
132+207 
130+200 
179+125 
130+ 75 
75 



2+500 
135+503=438 

130+303=433 
134+270=404 
130+109=239 
132+107=239 
130+100=230 

79+ 69=148 
130+ 15=145 

75 



12 
185 

130 
134 
132 
130 
132 
120 
130 
75 



427 1307 1077 1128 

It will be seen that the Hebrew, or Ussher's chronology, 
gives a considerably shorter time after the Flood than the 
others, and some Biblical scholars are half way inclined to 
accept the longer chonologies because they think more years 
are needed than the Hebrew chronology gives. But all this 
grows out of the exaggerated and purely fanciful dates given 
in profane history for Egypt and Babylon which history I else- 
where show to bd fabricated. 



THE OTHER THREE CHRONOLOGIES 25 

The critics say the Samaritan Pentateuch was copied from 
that made by Ezra. Their reason for saying so is because 
they have aj theory that Moses' Pentateuch was not completed 
until Ezra's time, and therefore could njot have been in exist- 
ence in Samaria or the Kingdom of Israel earlier. But this 
critical hypothesis is so unlikely, so contradictory to the entire 
Bible and so absolutely unsupported that no man with com- 
mon sense can believe it. If Ezra and his priests manufac- 
tured the Pentateuch, does anyone think the Samaritans would 
have taken it over when they hated the Jews so? These Sa- 
maritans were not fools. If Ezra made up the Pentateuch 
from traditions and scraps, and succeeded in palming it off on 
his own people as the genuine work of Moses, could he also 
deceive his bitter enemies, the Samaritans? No, they would 
have exposed the pious fraud. If they had never heard of 
such a "Book of Moses" would they have received a forged 
one from a Jew! It is a proposition too absurd to argue. 

The kingdom set up by Jeroboam, like the Kingdom of 
Judah, had its copies of the Pentateuch all the years from 
bolomon's death. While the scribes in the temple at Jerusa- 
lem were careful to make accurate copies of Moses' Penta- 
teuch, the people of the ten tribes also had their copies in the 
hands of such men as Elijah, Obediah, Ahijah, Jonah, Mi- 
caiah, Obed, Hosea and the tens of thousands of others in 
Ephraim who remained! loyal to Jehovah, the God of Moses ; 
for even in the very darkest hour there were "seven thousand 
who had not bowed the knee to Baal." 

When Samaria was destroyed about 721 B. C. and her 
people carried far away, strangers from distant parts of the 
Assyrian Empire were brought into the province of Samaria 
(2 Ks. 17:24) and, mingling with Israel, formed the Sa- 
maritans. It is related in the 1 7th chapter of 2 Kings how 



26 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

the king of Assyria, desiring to teach these transplanted peo- 
ples "the God of the land," sent thither one of his captive 
priests together with learned Assyrians who, no doubt, un- 
derstood Hebrew (2 Kings 18:28) and these men (plural 
'them' in verse 27) procured copies of the Ephraim Penta- 
teuch from which they constructed, as I believe, what has 
come down to us under the name "Samaritan Pentateuch" and 
it is more nearly like our Pentateuch than is the Septuagint. 

If you were in ancient Samaria (now called Nablus) to- 
day you would find a congregation of these Samaritans with 
an exceedingly ancient copy of the Pentateuch in Hebrew 
letters of an older form than those in which Ezra wrote his 
copy of the Pentateuch, for he used Hebrew letters which con- 
formed in shape to the Aramaic with which he was acquaint- 
ed while in captivity in Babylon. 

THe Samaritan Pentateuch, then, had as a basis the copies 
which had been circulating in the Kingdom of Israel ever 
since the ten tribes rebelled. I believe when the king of 
Assyria compelled the priest to return and, under the over- 
sight of Assyrian scholars, they revised the Ephraim Penta- 
teuch, the chronology following the Flood was changed to 
correspond with the chronology which Ashurbanipal had for- 
mulated for his great library at Nineveh, for this was the 
king who transported some of these foreigners into Samaria 
(Ezra 4:10). They mechanically added 100 years to near- 
ly every patriarch's age at his son's birth from Arphaxad to 
Abraham and., to even things up, took off about 300 years 
from some preceding the Flood. This, I believe, was the 
origin of the Samaritan chronology, and it was made up from 
the older Ephraim copies of the Pentateuch, not later than 
660 B. C. 

One glance at the Samaritan and Septuagint columns of the 



THE OTHER THREE CHRONOLOGIES 27 

two tables, above, will convince any person that one of these 
was copied from the other, and neither from the Hebrew. 
Did the Samaritan copy from the Septuagint? Impossible, 
for the archaic style of the Hebrew alphabet of the Samaritan 
shows that it was in existence at least 300 years before we 
had a Greek translation. See also the "67" of Methuselah, 
in the Samaritan, and the "79" of Nahor to which the Sep- 
tuagint adds 100 years, the Hebrew having different figures. 

Now a word as to the Septuagint, or Greek Pentateuch, 
sometimes called the LXX. It was translated close to the 
year 300 B. C. and thel basis for it, I am convinced, was not 
a Jewish manuscript of the Book of Moses, neither was it 
translated by Jewish scholars, for I shall show hereafter that 
its translators were not good Hebrew scholars. They had 
before them variant copies of the Pentateuch from the ten 
tribes, among others the Assyrian-Samaritan copy and from 
these a new chronology was constructed, retaining all the 
"100 year" additions made by the Assyrians and adding other 
"100 years" to patriarchs from Adam to Noah, in order to 
make a chronology to better agree with that manufactured 
by Egypt's historian, Manetho, that monumental liar, who 
flourished at that exact time. 

To the Jewish scribe in the temple was given over by 
Jehovah the correct transmission of the Pentateuch to us. So 
to the Hebrew, by way of the massoretes, must we look for 
an accurate chronology. The Samaritan and Septuagint fell 
into the hands of foreigners who had no veneration for Moses' 
law, while the Jewish scribe would have suffered the loss of 
his right arm rather than purposely alter any part of it, unless 
to make it the better understandable as cities and countries took 
on new names, or some such legitimate corrections. 

I have not a particle of doubt but that the chronology given 



28 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

in Genesis in the Hebrew is that which came from Adam, 
Noah, Abraham, Joseph and those intervening and following 
until the time of Moses; and as the very earliest history we 
have shows that writing was in use, I see no reason to think 
otherwise than that Adam knew how to write when he left 
Paradise and that those patriarchs who followed him knew the 
art of writing. Everything points to the fact that written 
documents were handed down and kept on file in all western 
Asia in the days of the patriarchs, and why should we deny 
the same in the case of these Bible characters? 

Some critic may sneer at the idea, that Adam, Methuselah, 
and Noah could write. But I must inform these long-eared 
critics that they accept it without question that their man Sar- 
gon I, of Babylonia, who, as they say, lived 3800 B. C, 
and his son, Naram Sin left inscriptions on bricks; but 3800 
B. C. takes us back beyond the birth of Methuselah! If 
these critics insist that this old man Sargon could write, they 
must close their mouths when I say that both Adam and Me- 
thuselah may have been able to write, as both were living after 
3800 B. C. But I do not want anything said here to leave 
the impression that I think Sargon was living then, as I am 
taking the critics on their own ground; although I shall show 
their foundation is exceedingly insecure. Sargon I, lived long 
after the Deluge, and much more recently than 3800 B. C. 

Now let us take a peep at the kind of historic figures those, 
who criticise, or look askance at Bible chronology, hand out 
to us. Their figures on the age of Egypt and Babylonia 
are as wild and unsupported as those "millions" of years dished 
up to us so glibly by certain geologists, when they have ab- 
solutely no means of knowing whether it took millions or only 
thousands of years for certain thicknesses of rock to accumu- 
late. 



CHAPTER IV. 

DISCORDANT PROFANE ANCIENT HISTORY. 

As I have shown in chapter I and in Tables 1 and 2, the 
chronology of Genesis tells us that man first appeared on this 
earth about 4000 B. C, or 6,000 years agjo. Now, if gen- 
uine profane history proves conclusively that man was living 
in Egypt or Babylonia or elsewhere many years longer than 
4000 B. C, then either we do not understand the genealogy 
and chronology given in Genesis or they are unreliable. I be- 
lieve we do understand Genesis. It states as plainly as lan- 
guage can make it and I see no escape from the conclusion 
that the Bible puts man's advent on earth not much more nor 
less than 6,000 years ago. 

But this is not all, for the Bible also tells us, as is shown 
in table 2, that an universal Deluge destroyed all mankind 
except one family, and that about 2348 B. C. a new race 
was begun, all other peoples in the whole earth having been 
annihilated. Now, if real history shows that in Babylonia, 
Egypt or elsewhere, there have been continuous and uninterrupt- 
ed civilization running back much beyond 2348 B. C, then the 
chronology and genealogy given in Genesis, following the 
Flood, are unreliable, either because x>f not being understood 
or because inherently wrong. 

Now, with these facts in mind, we are asked to show that 
Genesis agrees with profane history (and it ought to agree 
with true profane history) and we are asked to throw the 
Bible away on the assumption that it does actually disagree 
with profane history, as to the length of time since man began 
to live on the earth, especially in historic Egypt and Babylonia, 
and in case of the prehistoric cave and post-glacial men. 

It is well known and admitted by all historians that the 



30 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

reliable history of most countries like Greece, Rome, Germany, 
England and China goes back only to 800 or 100 B. G, 
with some unbelievable mythological tales running possibly 
somewhat more remote. Such countries as Phoenicia, ancient 
Iran, India, Crete and Arabia can be traced back almost to 
1500 B. C, by history, but only Babylonia and Egypt have 
histories reaching much beyond the latter date. 

Now, what do the historians say as to how old Egyptian 
and Babylonian civilizations are? If historians do not know 
and therefore differ enormously among themselves, and are 
giving us a fabricated history, they must not ask the Bible to 
agree with them. Indeed, I shall proceed now to show that 
the claims of historians as to the age of ancient civilizations 
differ so radically that it is utterly impossible that anybody 
could agree with their conclusions, and a Bible student would 
have to furnish as many different sets of figures for Genesis 
to have it agree with historical chronology as there are his- 
torians and these figures would differ, not by hundreds, but by 
thousands of years. 

Let me, as a beginning, quote two eminent authorities as to 
the opening of histpry in Babylonia. Breasted's History) of 
Egypt, printed in 1911, says, on page VIII, "We possess 
njo monument of Babylon older than 3000 B. C," but Web- 
ster's Unabridged Dictionary, printed in 1912, page VI, unr 
der Ancient History, says, "Civilized life already is carried 
on 6000 B. C. in Babylonia." Here is only a trifling little 
discrepancy of 3000 years! I wonder with which of these 
the Bible must agree! The fact is, if the 3000 B. C. for 
Babylonia's date be changed to 2000, it would be much more 
nearly correct, provided the historian takes actual profane his- 
tory as his guide and discards speculation. Keane, p. 482, 
quotes Oppert as tracing Egyptian civilization back 1 1 ,500 



DISCORDANT PROFANE ANCIENT HISTORY 31 

years. If we throw the Bible away because it fails to agree 
with Oppert, we must also cast aside such histories of Egypt 
as Petrie's and Breasted's for they too disagree many thous- 
and from Oppert. The Bible will not be the only book in the 
scrap-pile. More likely it will be the only one not found 
there. 

Myers' Ancient History, a text book in many colleges, on 
page 1 says: "About 5000 B. C, when the curtain of his- 
tory first rises there were nations already venerable with age," 
but before he gets off this first page of his history, Myers as 
good as clips off 1 ,000 years from the rash statement first 
made, and then he is more than another thousand too high. 
Breasted's History of Ancient Egyptians, page 15, says 
4241 B. C, is the earliest date, but the author hastens on 
without informing us how it is proven. On page 1 6 this 
author gives the date for Menes, the mythological king of the 
equally mythological first dynasty, as 3400 B. C. ; Myers, 
on page 15, gives Menes' date as 4500; Mariette, a French 
author, says 5004; Brugsch, a noted historian, says 4400; 
Josephus gives it 2350; Bunsen puts it at 3623 and in a later 
edition of his work knocks off about 600 years making his 
date 3059; Stuart Poole says 2717; Wilkinson puts it at 
2691; Rawlinson's Origin of Nations, page 31, says the 
civilization of Egypt began not farther back than 2450 B. C, 
nor more recent than 2250 B. C. Either of Rawlinson's 
dates would only carry us back to Noah's Flood. Web- 
ster's 1912 edition of his dictionary under "Ancient History" 
says Menes is placed by some authors at 4777 B. C. and 
others as late as 3200 B. C. and as shown above many put 
it still later. The National Geographic Magazine for 
September, 1913, has an article by James Baikie which says 
there are more than 2000 years difference between Petrie and 



32 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

Eduard Meyer as to the age of ancient Egypt, the latter knock- 
ing off 2000 from the former. If Meyer sees fit to do this 
which Baikie says shows a "staggering difference,*' these men 
must not fault one who, desirous of getting still nearer the 
truth, knocks off a few hundred years more. 

Exactly the same jumble of historical dates appears as to 
the beginning of Babylonian history. Myers' history gives 
Sargon I, one of the earliest rulers, as 3800 B. C. ; Prof. 
Winckler, a noted authority, says 3000, and Dr. Lehman, an 
archaeologist, puts it at 2800. George S. Goodspeed, late 
professor of ancient history in the University of Chicago, in 
his History of the Babylonians and Assyrians, published 
in 1912, on page 50, says, "Babylon furnishes for the his- 
tory of mankind the most ancient authentic records at present 
known." Now turn to page 443 of Breasted's History of 
Egypt, published in 1911, where the author, also a profes- 
sor of history in the University of Chicago, quotes eminent 
historians and archaeologists as saying that it is now impossible 
to hold to the early date of Sargon I, and quotes the eminent 
historian Eduard Meyer as recently saying: "It is highly im- 
probable that we possess a single Babylonian document older 
than 3000 B. C." Here we have one eminent Chicago Uni- 
versity author saying Babylon furnishes the oldest authentic 
history in the world, which is true; and the other equally emi- 
nent author saying that Babylon furnishes nothing older than 
3000 B. C. Now compare this statement of Eduard Meyer 
which places Babylon's most ancient date as 3000 B. C, 
with the statement of Prof. Heriry Smith Williams on page 
308, vol. 6, Enc. Bri : "Indeed there are Babylonian tab- 
lets in the British Museum labeled 4500 B. C, and later re- 
searches, particularly those of the expedition of the University 
of Pennsylvania, at Nippur, have brought us evidence which 



DISCORDANT PROFANE ANCIENT HISTORY 33 

if interpreted with the aid of estimates as to the average rate of 
dust deposits, leads to the inference that a high state of civili- 
zation had been attained in Mesopotamia at least 9,000 
years ago." These two eminent historians differ 6,000 years 
as to Babylon, and yet the Bible must agree with both of 
them! Bah!! 

I might fill pages quoting discordant dates as to the begin- 
ning of ancient civilization in Egypt and Babylonia, but the 
reader can look this up for himself. 

Why this utter disagreement as to the opening dates tor 
the two oldest civilizations in the world? Why do histor- 
ians differ more than 2,000 years as to the beginning of Egyp- 
tian civilization and sometimes even more as to Babylon? It 
is simply because they do not know. Egypt never had a sys- 
tem of chronology. Their most ancient historian, Manetho, 
who lived about 300 B. C, gave a list of 30 dynasties, and 
many kings whose reigns added together would reach back 
more than to 5000 B. C. But it has been proven long ago 
that several of his dynasties were reigning in different parts ot 
Egypt at the same time, and the names of monarchs since 
found on pyramids and monuments do not agree with the list 
given by Manetho. Maspero, one of the most reliable Egyp- 
tian historians, in his Dav>n of Civilization, says "The 
Pharonic lists of kings were not made up till about 1200 B. 
C, and these lists are not at all like those of Manetho either 
in name or number of years of reign." Then Maspero, on 
page 237, sums up Egyptian history back of 1200 B. C. as 
follows: "We must, therefore, take the record of all this 
opening period of history for what it is, namely, a system 
invented at a much later date * * * without according to it 
that excessive confidence which it has hitherto received," and 
"We cannot reconcile Manetho with the Pharonic lists." 



34 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

The same author on page 233 says of Menes, the first ruler: 
"He was fabulous. Some king may have borne such a name 
but on closer examination, his pretentions to reality disappear 
and his personality is reduced to a cipher." Flinders Petrie, 
says he has found the tomb of Menes. That settles it that 
Menes really lived in Egypt, does it? They have also found 
the tomb of the god Osiris; does that prove that he lived? 
Shall we now look for the tomb of Jupiter, Beelzebub, Jack 
Frost, Santa Claus and Tom Thumb? The whole thing is 
ridiculous. 

Breasted's history on page) 15 says, "Manetho's history of 
Egypt (from which we get most of our information) was 
written about 300 B. C. The work has perished and all we 
know of it are extracts quoted by more recent writers. The 
value of the work was small, as it was built up on folk-tales." 
This Manetho is he that gives us the 30 dynasties, we hear so 
much about, and most of it is likely pure fabrication. We 
must not forget either that this same Manethjo pretended to 
give history running back of 30,000 B. C. (Rawlinson, p. 
159). This historian on p. 158 says Manetho was incorrect in 
history nearest to his times and cannot therefore be depended 
upon. Manetho's history was entirely lost more than 2,000 
years ago, and we have only quotations, supposed to have been 
taken from it by Josephus, Africanus and Eusebius. But 
their quotations do not agree either in number of kings, in these 
dynasties, nor the years they reigned. Consequently, when 
we add up the years in one it gives a total hundreds of years 
different from what the other quotations give, and none of 
them ever agree with what we find inscribed on the ancient 
monuments, temples and papyri. The monuments give us 
very good history of the 18th dynasty, but it is not the least 
bit like what Manetho gives. Judging by the different quo- 






DISCORDANT PROFANE ANCIENT HISTORY 35 



tations they give us, it is likely Josephus, Eusebius and Afri- 
canus never saw Manetho's history, and therefore quotations 
from it are not a whit more reliable than the adventures of 
Baron Munchausen. 

Anstey of England, in speaking of the utter worthlessness 
of Manetho's history, uses these words: "There is also another 
source of uncertainty in the numbers of Manetho, arising from 
the fact that he is variously quoted by Eusebius and Afri- 
canus. Thus Eusebius gives 100 years, and Africanus 409 
years, for the 9th dynasty. Eusebius makes the three Shep- 
herd dynasties 103, 250 and 190 years. Africanus gives 
them as 284, 5 1 8 and 1 5 1 , a difference of 4 1 years. There 
is no possibility of reconciling these differences, and no possi- 
bility of arriving at any assured scientific chronology of Egypt 
from the materials in our possession." 

Webster's latest edition (1912) of the Unabridged Dic- 
tionary, in summing up ancient Egyptian history, says, of the 
period back of the 18th dynasty, which began about 1600 
B. C, "Many writers refuse to give a chronology for this 
period." Why? Because there is none to give. 

Now we are asked to abandon the Genesis chronology be- 
cause it does not agree with this mass of fabricated guess work 
about ancient Egypt! The critics who object to Bible chro- 
nology are willing to accept any old thing in the way of chro- 
nology that comes from some other source. Whenever Bible 
chronology is shown to contain the thousandth part of unre- 
liability found in the history that the critics accept, I am ready 
to discard it, but they must bring us something more reliable 
than has yet appeared in ancient profane history before they 
ask us to reject the Bible, the only reliable history extant tor 
the period back of 2000 B. C, in fact there is but little re- 
liable profane history prior to 1000 B. C. 



36 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

I have taken up considerable space as to disagreements 
among historians as to ancient Egyptian history, because the 
Nile valley is commonly supposed to be the seat of the oldest 
civilization in the world. Babylonia is likely about the same 
age, a little older, but (outside the Bible) ancient Babylonian 
history is as unreliable as Egyptian. Space forbids my making 
other than a brief additional reference to it: Goodspeed's his- 
tory, (published 1912) on pages 51 to 57, tells us that it is 
impossible to give dates for Babylon's first cities (mentioned in 
the 10th chapter of Genesis). We use this historian's own 
words, "It is impossible to give a connected and detailed ac- 
count of this period, owing to the scantiness of the materials 
and the difficulty of arranging them chronologically." On 
page 57 this historian says. "The historic relations between in- 
dividual actors upon the wide stage are painfully uncertain." 
This author in speaking, on page 61 , of the Sumerians, the most 
ancient post-diluvian inhabitants of Babylonia, and the times 
immediately following them, says, "There may be some truth 
in all these generalizations ***** assent to their definite de- 
tails must, for the present, be withheld." 

We would have nothing definite whatever as to Babylonian 
dates back of Abraham's time were it not for the statement of 
Nabonidus, about 550 B. C, that Naram Sin, son of Sar- 
gon I, lived 3,200 years earlier than the time of Nabonidus, 
which places Naram Sin 3750 and his father 3800 B. C. 
Nobody believes this now, especially since it is known that 
Nabonidus attributed some deeds to Sargon I that were the 
acts of Sargon II, who reigned 722 B. C. (p. 599, Maspero). 
Goodspeed, on page 61, says, "The inscriptions coming di- 
rectly* from Sargon I, and his son are few and historically un- 
important." 

Sir Charles Lyell, a most eminent authority, says: "When 



DISCORDANT PROFANE ANCIENT HISTORY 37 

we turn from history to ancient monuments and inscriptions, 
after they have been studied with so much patience and 
sagacity, for centuries, they remain uncertain and obscure." 

The truth is, if we who believe the historical statements of 
the Bible, give them up, we must do so on the strength of a 
mass of unreliable, unproved and unhistorical garbled state- 
ments that no sensible man can accept. If the critics prefer 
to base their faith on these things rather than accept the sen- 
sible, orderly statements of Genesis they can do so, but they 
must not ask other people to follow them. 

I think I am perfectly safe in saying that not one undis- 
puted or reliable profane historic date of civilization reaches 
back within 1 ,800 years of the date given in Genesis of man's 
advent on earth. In other words, Genesis gives us 1 ,800 years 
more than we need to meet the demands of authenticated history. 
I certainly should not be surprised if architectural remains back 
of the Flood (about 2348 B. C.) may have been found in 
Babylonia or may yet be discovered, for those regions were 
thickly populated prior to that cataclysm, and in a later chap- 
ter I point to certain Babylonian cities and inscriptions which 
I believe date back of Noah's Flood. 

Do the civilizations of Babylonia or Egypt run continuous- 
ly to a date far more ancient than Genesis gives for the 
Deluge? What is the actual truth about the beginnings of 
civilization in such countries as these? Why are our scien- 
tific men and historians so mystifying as to people and dates 
when they speak of the Paleolithic and Neolithic races, when 
they could as easily have pointed them out? The theory of 
evolution is back of it all. There is no doubt whatever but 
that the extreme evolutionists and historians have been grossly 
exaggerating the antiquity of these countries. Let me present 
some plain unvarnished facts in the following chapters. 



CHAPTER V. 

THE TRUTH ABOUT EGYPTIAN AND BABYLONIAN HISTORY. 

In this chapter it will not be my purpose to attempt to show 
how the Bible agrees with true Egyptian and Babylonian his- 
tory, and only incidentally will the Bible be referred to, but 
in Part II, I take up and remark upon the wonderful agree- 
ment between real history and every date given in Genesis 
when that date comes in touch with a verified profane date. 
But I must now emphasize the fact, for it cannot be too often 
repeated, that the most reliable ancient history extant is thai 
given in the Old Testament. 

Before I begin to give the facts about the ancient history of 
Babylonia, Assyria and Egypt, I must state that Egypt never 
had a chronological system. We find on the pyramids, tem- 
ples or other monumentsi merely the names of kings and some- 
times the additional statement that one of them did some nota- 
ble thing in a certain year of his reign. Most all countries 
now count time from the birth of Christ and date an event 
"A. D. 1916," for instance, but Egypt never did anything of 
that kind. She did not even make up lists of kings nor chron- 
ological tables of any kind until later than the 18th dynasty 
and probably knew but little more of what had 1 been going on 
back of the 1 8th dynasty than we do about the Mound Build- 
ers. All historians can do as to Egypt is to get together trie 
names of kings and add up so much of the length of their 
reigns as can be ascertained. But in innumerable cases two 
kings were reigning in different sections of Egypt at the same 
time and sometimes, possibly, several kings or dynasties were 
ruling at one time. 

Thus it is very hard to get even a semblance of truth as to 




THE TRUTH ABOUT ANCIENT HISTORY 39 



Egyptian history, and the farther back we go the less reliable 
it becomes. 

Babylon, back to 747 B. C, had a cumbrous system of 
dating that was fairly accurate. When a king began to reign 
they dated every contract or event in the kingdom by saying 
it was done "The year the king ascended the throne," and 
the next year would be "The year a certain canal was dug" 
and so on. Several such lists have been found reaching back 
to 747 B. O, but back of that all is very uncertain and were 
it not for Assyrian data we could never have been able to tract 
ancient Babylonian history except from the few references in 
the Bible, and a few Egyptian synchronisms. 

Assyria had a better system of dating events than any other 
ancient people except the Hebrews. Assyria named each year 
by some prominent man. This was called the eponym sys- 
tem. The first year of a king was generally named for him. 
Then any paper or document for that year was dated by his 
name. The next year, perhaps, was named for his leading 
general, and the third year for some other prominent officer 
and so on. Many broken lists of this kind have been found 
so that a fairly accurate history of Assyria can be constructed 
running back to 1300 B. C. Prior to that we have certain 
long numbers which throw some light on more ancient times, 
but these long numbers are found, in many cases, to be false 
and more or less suspicion is cast upon all of them. A few such 
long dates are also recorded for Babylon but they are even 
less tjo be depended upon. For instance: Shalmaneser I of 
Assyria rebuilt a temple in the city of Asshur and he set up 
four stone tablets containing the statements that before his time 
this temple was rebuilt by king Erishum and after 159 years 
was restored 1 by Shamshi-adad and 580 years later was de- 
stroyed by fire in Shalmaneser's reign and rebuilt by him. By 



40 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

(other means it is pretty certain that Shalmaneser lived about 
1 320 B. C. Add 580 and we are supposed to get Shamshi- 
adad's date, about 1900 B. C, and 159 more and we get 
about 2060 B. C, for Erishum. But Esarhaddon, a later king, 
also mentions these dates and instead of 159 he gives 126 
years and instead of 580 he gives 434 years. This would 
put Erishum about 1880 B. C. instead of 2060. 
Both of these dates cannot be correct, possibly neither 
of them. Nabonidus, king of Babylon, who lived 550 

B. C, says he dug down to a foundation stone laid by Naram 
Sin 3,200 years earlier. This would put Naram Sin 3750 tJ. 

C, but all historians, except the extremists, now admit that 
what Nabonidusi said is incorrect. So we see the data which 
we must depend upon to fix profane dates back of 1000 B. 
C. in old Babylonia, Egypt and Assyria, and especially back 
of 1,500 or 1,600 B. C. is exceedingly untrustworthy. 
Critics, when discrediting Bible historic dates, always assume 
that Assyrian or Babylonian dates are correct, and they ex- 
pect us to accept such data as true when it is known that they 
are very often incorrect. Let me quote from page 111, vol. 3, 
Enc. Bri.: "That Assyrian scribes could make mistakes in their 
reckoning is definitely proven by the discovery at Shergat of 
two totally conflicting accounts of the age and history of the 
great temple of Asshur." 

Because of the lack of any dating system in Egypt, modern 
historians have tried to rely upon what is called the "Sothic 
Cycle" to establish dates for ancient Egypt. This is exceed- 
ingly unreliable, as I shall show in another chapter, especially 
for dates back of 1 600 B. C. it is of no account whatever. 

However, by taking all the facts we can gather from 
annals of Babylon, Assyria and Egypt we can arrive at some 
dates quite accurate back to 1000 B. C. and fairly so for 



THE TRUTH ABOUT ANCIENT HISTORY 41 

about 500 years more remote, but beyond that we are hope- 
lessly lost in attempting to fix dates except as we rely upon the 
Bible. 

I have shown in chapter IV that historians make all sorts of 
disagreeing statements as to ancient dates, and I have called 
attention to the fact that in the face of this utter disagreement, 
many authors, and some who read after them, fault the Bible 
because it does not furnish a set of figures agreeing with each 
and every variant profane conclusion as to ancient dates. 
It is apparent to any sensible man that it is impossible tor 
the Bible to do this. It cannot agree with Josephus, Herodotus, 
Manetho, Lepsius, Meyer, Kent, Beecher, Ridpath, Rawl- 
inson, Goodspeed, Breasted, Petrie, etc., etc., when no two of 
these agree. 

But is there no plan by which we can approach this sub- 
ject of the age of ancient civilization so as to arrive at some 
sort of a satisfactory understanding? Is it possible to ascer- 
tain from profane history the approximate date of the Israeh't- 
ish bondage in Egypt or that of the Exodus, so as to settle the 
question whether the Bible is telling the truth or not? Is it 
possible (leaving out the question of the antediluvians) to 
satisfy ourselves whether Babylonia and Egypt were peopled 
since 2348 B.C. or must we accept the longer dates of 5000, 
4000 or even 3000 B. C? 

I am constrained to believe there is a satisfactory solution and 
I propose to approach the subject in the most sensible manner 
I know of. I will start with a profane date that is accepted 
by everybody, one that all historians agree upon, one ac- 
ceptable to Bible adherents as well as to atheists and higher 
critics and one that agrees with Ussher's chronology. Such 
a date I believe to be 747 B. C. Why do I take that date? 

About the middle of the second century after Christ there 



42 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

lived at Alexandria, Egypt, an astronomer and historian named 
Claudius Ptolemy. This man made a chronological table of 
dated events beginning with 747 B. C. and ending with the 
time he lived. It is known as "Ptolemy's Canon." He 
named the kings of Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, Greece, Rome, 
and Persia. We are not here interested except as to the first 
three countries. He probably began at 747 B. C. because 
he had nothing but contradictory extracts from Manetho's 
history for Egypt back of that date and he knew, as we do, 
that Manetho could not be depended upon. He also selected 
that date because prior to that Babylon kept no dated records, 
and because too, there is a break in the Assyrian chronology 
immediately back of 747 B. C. that possibly made Ptolemy 
suspicious of it. Oriental countries often do not record dis- 
astrous years. 

This break in the Assyrian chronology is so very important, 
as it affects all dates back of that time, and because Egyptian 
dates were fixed by Assyrian, that I must make it clear to my 
readers. That is the only cause for a disagreement between 
Bible dates and Assyrian dates. Beecher's Dated Events 
p. 1 8, says Assyrian chronology agrees with the Bible always 
except "different is the period between the two Assyrian kings, 
Ramman-nirari III, sometimes written Adad-nirari, and Ash- 
ur-daan III, from the middle of the reign of Amaziah of 
Judah to the middle part of the reign of Uzziah. For this 
period the Assyrian canon has only the ten years' reign of Shal- 
maneser III while the Bible date calls for 61 years." Good- 
speed's history, page 204, says, "unfortunately no satisfactory 
annals of the reign of Adad-nirari III have been preserved, 
and royal inscriptions of the next three kings utterly fail." 
Beecher's Dated Events, p. 19, says this was a period of disas- 
ter to Assyria and some years are not recorded and that tra- 



THE TRUTH ABOUT ANCIENT HISTORY 43 

dition says Ptolemy suspected this and refused to carry his 
canon back over that period. , 

At this date, 747 B. C, Ptolemy tells us that the reign of 
Sheshonk IV, the last king of the 22nd Egyptian dynasty, 
had just ended in 745 and the 23rd dynasty had begun. He 
also tells us that the reign of Adadi-nirari III of Assyria was 
at an end in 745 and Tiglath Pileser III beginning, and that 
Nabonassar had just ascended the throne in Babylon. 

Now open any reliable history that you may happen to have, 
whether the author believes and accepts the Ussher Bible 
dates or not, and you will find the rulers of Judah, Israel, 
Egypt, Assyria and Babylon dated agreeably in accordance 
with this Ptolemy date. Ussher gives Jotham as the ruler of 
Judah and! Pekah of Israel at that date. All the dates given 
in the Bible from these two kings until the end of the Old 
Testament so exactly synchronize, or agree, with Assyrian 
and other profane dates that there is no conflict. 

Therefore, I take 747 B. C. as an accepted Egyptian, 
Assyrian, Babylonian and Bible date. It is very likely Ptol- 
emy is wrong a number of years between the end of the Old 
Testament and the Christian era, but this does not affect the 
agreement or disagreement of more ancient dates. 

Now let me furnish another profane date at 1000 B. C. 
that will appeal to my readers as an acceptable date. The 
Bible tells us (1 Kings 14:25) that Shishak (Sheshonk I) 
came from Egypt against Rehoboam in the fifth year of the 
latter's reign over Judah. That was 970 B. C. according to 
Ussher and was only five years after the death of Solomon, and 
as he reigned 40 years he was ruling at Jerusalem 1 000 B. C. 
The records on the monuments of Egypt tell us that Shishak 
made this attack on Jerusalem in the twentieth year of his 
reign. Add 20 to 970 and we have 990, but the records 



44 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

also show that he reigned at least 21 years and likely more. 
Therefore he was reigning in Egypt so close to 1000 B. C. 
that we may say, approximately, that he and Solomon were 
contemporaneous rulers at about 1000 B. C. Moreover, 
some authors think this was the king whose daughter Solomon 
married ( 1 Kings 3:1). If so it was Shishak then that took 
the city of Gezer and gave it as a present to Solomon (1- 
Kings 9:16). Breasted, p. 433, says the same thing. For 
myself, I am certain it was an earlier Pharaoh's daughter 
whom Solomon married. 

This, then, is Shishak's date according to the Bible, but 
the Assyrian date is 5 1 years less than that which Beecher 
gives in his Dated Events and 44 less than Ussher gives, these 
chronologers differing by 7 years in their totals for the kings 
of Judah and Israel for this period. The Assyrian date for 
Shishak's attack against Rehoboam is not 970, as Ussher 
gives, but 926 B. C. (Breasted page 362 and Goodspeed 
page 380). Which is correct, the 926 Assyrian date! or the 
greater number according to the Bible? Historians reject the 
Bible date and make Egypt agree with the Assyrian date. 
We must settle this, as that 44 years is a vital factor in more 
ancient dates, when we come to consider the time of Joshua's 
invasion of Canaan and the date, 40 years earlier, when the 
Exodus occurred. This 44 years also affect all dates from 
1000 B. C. down to about 747 B. C. For our purpose here 
we are only concerned for dates back of 1000 B. C. and for 
those times to the Assyrian date we must add 44 years to make 
it agree with the Ussher Bible date and 51 years to agree 
with Beecher's chronological calculations, which never differ 
more than seven years from Ussher and sometimes after Sol- 
omon's time by not more than one to three years. The Bible, 
according to Ussher, has 44 too many years prior to 1000 B. 



THE TRUTH ABOUT ANCIENT HISTORY 45 

C. or the Assyrian chronology has 44 too few. Which is in 
error ? 

The period from 745 to 945 B. C, as Assyria gives the 
dates, is 200 years but Beecher makes it 25 1 years and 
Ussher about 248 years. This period is exactly covered by 
the 22nd Egyptian dynasty. 

The length of time an Egyptian king served in this or any 
other dynasty can scarcely ever be exactly ascertained; gen- 
erally there is only a mention, in some inscription, in some 
temple or on some monument, that a king did so and so in 
the 21st year of his reign orl the 36th year or the 23 rd year. 
We know he served at least that many years, but how much 
longer we may never know. On pages 433 and 434 of 
Breasted's History of Egypt is given all we know about 
this 22nd Egyptian dynasty in the following table: 

Sheshonk 1 Reigned 21 Years plus X 

Osorkon I Reigned 36 Years plus X 

Takelot I Reigned 23 Years plus X 

Osorkon II Reigned 30 Years plus X 

Sheshonk II Reigned 00 Years plus X 

Takelot II Reigned 25 Years plus X 

Sheshonk III Reigned 52 Years 

Pemou Reigned 6 Years plus X 

Sheshonk IV Reigned 37 Years plus X 



200 Years 8 X 

Why does Breasted give a total of 200 for this column 
when any man who can add sees the actual sum is 230/ years 
plus 8X? Breasted does this because the Assyrian record for 
this, period is 200 years. Historians know this is wrong and 
yet, strange to say, they prefer to use an Assyrian chronology, 



46 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

they know to be wrong, rather than take the Bible date that 
may be correct. The X after nearly every king of this dynasty 
means that he reigned more than the years given. This entire 
dynasty was 230 years plus 8X. If X represents an average 
of 2 years, 8X will give us 1 6 years which brings the total 
to 246 years, and makes it very probable that the Bible is 
correct. As the Bible is reliable in all its other dates for this 
period, why not in this? 

For a full explanation of this error in the Assyrian calendar, 
I refer my readers to pages 22 and 23 of Beecher's Dated 
Events, where the author conclusively proves that the Bible 
dates are correct. When historians thus reject the plain record 
of the 22nd Egyptian dynasty, they must keep in mind that 
they ask us to accept the figures for 21 other dynasties more 
remote and much less trustworthy than this comparatively 
recent dynasty. If Bible critics refuse to accept the total for 
this dynasty and change a probable 246 years to 200 years 
how about the reliability of still plder dynasties which they ask 
us to accept ! ! 

The Bible then is correct in its date for Shishak, and I 
am now warranted in saying that we have another established 
rock-bottom ancient date for an Egyptian king, that of about 
1 000 B. C. for Sheshonk I, the Shishak of the Bible, and I 
must incidentally remark that while this fixes a date for Egypt 
it also proves Bible dates since Solomon's reign to be cor- 
rect, and Assyrian chronology to be incorrect for all dates 
more ancient than about 747 B. C. 

Can I now proceed farther back in profane history and 
find another still more remote profane date for Egypt, Assyria 
and Babylonia that will be accepted as reasonably accurate? 
I think I can. 

As I have said, Egypt never dated any event nor the reign 



THE TRUTH ABOUT ANCIENT HISTORY 47 

of a king and we can reach an ancient Egyptian date from 
Egyptian records only by "dead reckoning," that is by adding 
the years of all the kings back from one known period to the 
one we want to establish. This is exceedingly unsatisfactory 
because we are not always certain to which dynasty a king 
belongs nor are we sure but that two dynasties may have ruled 
simultaneously instead of one following the other. But sup- 
pose we discover that certain Egyptian, Assyrian and Babylon- 
ian rulers, at some ancient date, had written letters to each 
other and these letters should be found then we would know 
that such rulers lived at the same time, and we would have the 
facts and data of all these countries to figure from to settle a 
date. This is exactly what happened. 

In the year 1887 A. D. explorers found at Tel el-Amama 
in Egypt as many as 300 letters written in cuneiform on dried 
or baked tablets. These letters were written from all parts 
of western Asia by kings of Mitanni, Phoenicia, Palestine as 
well as Assyria and Babylon to two kings of Egypt, Amenho- 
tep III and his son, Amenhotep IV, of the 18th dynasty. 
These letters are known as the Tel el-Amarna letters. One 
of these letters was written to Amenhotep IV by Burnabu- 
riash, king of Babylon, and another by Kadashman Bel, the 
latter 's grandfather, and still another was written by Ashurur 
ballit, king of Assyria, to the same Amenhotep. Now, Burna- 
buriash and Ashuruballit are given in Assyrian history as liv- 
ing about 1 375 B. C. (Breasted p. 263) to which add 44 
years, as I have shown their history that much short, and we 
have the dates of these kings as about 1420 B. C. Then 
Amenhotep IV (sometimes called Akenaten) was reigning in 
Egypt about 1 420 B. C. Petrie gives the beginning of Amen- 
hotep's reign as 1 383 B. C, and to show that this is based on 
the short Assyrian chronology and needs the 44 years added, 



48 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

we have only to add the minimum dates for all the kings from 
Shishak back to Amenhotep, as given by Breasted, and we see 
that it runs the date beyond 1 383 B. C. I will not take the 
space to show this as any reader can get Breasted' s Ancient 
Records and. add it for himself. Now add 44 to 1 383 and 
we have 1427 B. C. as the beginning of the reign of Amea- 
hotep IV. The Enc. Bri., p. 867, vol. 3, says, "Now, one 
of the kings, who corresponded with Amenhotep IV, is Burna- 
buriash, king of Babylon, and Egyptologists and Assyriologists 
are agreed that the date of these monarchs was about 1 400 
B. C." If 44 years be added to this it gives 1444. Well, 
what has Amenhotep IV to do with the Bible? 

Ussher gives the date of the Exodus as 1491 B. C. and 
the opening of Joshua's campaign in Canaan as 40 years later, 
or 1451 B. C. This campaign is generally believed to have 
continued for 7 to 25 years. Suppose we say 25 years as that 
is the figure you will find given by Josephus and given in many 
Bible commentaries. Subtract 25 from 1 45 1 and we have 
1426, for the close of Joshua's campaign and in the midst of 
the reign of Amenhotep IV, his entire reign being about 1(5 
years. 

Amenhotep IV therefore reigned during a part of Joshua's 
campaigns. At this time Palestine was nominally under Egyp- 
tian control but this Amenhotep was having troubles at home. 
He had established a new Asiatic religion and had offended 
the native Egyptians so that he was unable to send help to his 
subordinates in Canaan in case they needed it. Remember that 
just at this time Joshua was overrunning Canaan, according to 
the Bible. Among the Amama letters, already mentioned, are 
a number written from Canaan to Amenhotep IV and to 
Amenhotep III by their subordinate rulers imploring aid be- 
cause the Habiri (Hebrews) were overrunning the land. Nine 



THE TRUTH ABOUT ANCIENT HISTORY 49 

of these letters were written by the ruler at Jerusalem. One of 
this ruler's letters says: "The territory of the king is lost 
to the Habiri people" and also "Let the king send troops that 
I may bring back the land to the king. For if there are no 
troops the land of the king will be lost to the Habiri people," 
and "The king no longer has any territory, the Habiri have 
devastated all the king's territory." Some critic has pointed 
to the different name given the king of Jerusalem, who wrote 
some of these Amarna letters, from that given in the book of 
Joshua, but the Hebrew name of this man may not be a bit like 
the same name in cuneiform, or a new king may have arisen. 
Carl Niebuhr, the noted author, in his The Tel el- Amarna 
Period, p. 27, says "By the Habiri we must understand no 
other than the Hebrews." 

These Amarna letters connect Joshua's invasion with the 
Amenhoteps and fix a date for us, and we have these facts: 
that Burnaburiash of Babylon and Amenhotep IV and his 
father, Amenhotep III of Egypt lived at the same time, which 
was about 1420 to 1440 B. C, for the beginning of the reign 
of Amenhotep IV and that the Habiri, which we know refers 
to the Hebrews, were overrunning Canaan, and had been for 
some time before Amenhotep III died. (Breasted p. 263.) 

This almost exactly agrees with Ussher's chronology and 
we have another reasonably certain date for Egypt, that is 
1427 B. C. for the middle of the reign of Amenhotep IV 
and we have the additional fact that the Bible is correct in 
putting the opening of Joshua's conquest of Canaan at about 
1451 B. C. 

Since the Explorer Naville discovered Pithom and Ra- 
meses ( Ex. 1:11) where the Israelites built treasure houses 
for Pharaoh, historians have declared that this was in the 
reign of Rameses II, about 1 290 B. C. and that therefore the 



50 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

Exodus must have been still later. But this is all nonsense. 
An inscription in the reign of Merneptah, the successor to 
Rameses, shows the Israelites already settled in Canaan after 
spending 40 years in the wilderness. Another Egyptian in- 
scription, 150 years previous, shows the Israelites making 
bricks under Tahutmes III, just the right date to agree with 
Ussher's time of the oppression. (See Part II). 

But I may be asked how Goshen could be named Rameses 
before there was a Pharaoh by that name. Later writers often 
do that. In the mention of Joseph (Gen: 47:1 1 ) Goshen is 
called Rameses and the critics explain that just as' I explain 
this mention in Ex. 1:11. I more fully refer to this in Part II. 
Now since we have established the fact that Amenhotep 
IV reigned about 1 427 B. C, it is quite easy to push Egyptian 
dates back to the Exodus and about 1 30 years beyond, for of 
all the dynasties that of the 1 8th, in which the Amenhoteps 
reigned, is given on the monuments most completely. Here is 
the 18th dynasty, as given by Petrie on p. 29 of vol. 2, from 
the dynasty's beginning to Amenhotep IV. 

Ahmes began to reign 1587 B. C. 

Amenhotep I began to reign 1562 B. C. 

Tahutmes I began to reign 1541 B. C. 

Tahutmes II began to reign 1516 B. C. 

Tahutmes III began to reign 1481 B. C. 

Amenhotep II began to reign 1449 B. C. 

Tahutmes IV began to reign 1423 B. C. 

Amenhotep III began to reign 1414 B. C. 

Amenhotep IV began to reign 1 383 B. C. 
(In this table Petrie calls Amenhotep IV by his other name 
Akenaten and he gives part of the reign of Tahutmes II to 
Hiatshepsut, his wife, who acted in place of that ruler much of 
the time.) 



THE TRUTH ABOUT ANCIENT HISTORY 51 

Now, as all Petrie's dates given above are affected by the 
Assyrian calendar, we must add 44 years to each date in this 
table, which as thus corrected, I give in Part II where I 
go more into detail as to the bondage and the Exodus period. 

We see Petrie, in this table, gives 1587 B. C. as the be- 
ginning of the 18th dynasty. Add 44 to this and we get 
1 63 1 as nearer the actual beginning. But some one will say 
that 1587 B. C. is fixed astronomically by the Sothic Cycle 
for the beginning of the 18th dynasty and cannot be wrong. 
In its proper place, I shall take up this question of the Sothic 
Cycle and show why it is utterly untrustworthy as a scheme for 
fixing Egyptian dates. 

I have now carried Babylonian, Assyrian and Egyptian 
chronology back to the Tel el-Amarna period and found that 
it was the same as the time of the conquest of Canaan by 
Joshua, a little less than 1450 B. C, and then by means of the 
fairly accurate figures for the 18th Egyptian dynasty, I have 
carried Egyptian history back beyond the Exodus and on to 
the beginning of the 18th dynasty, a little prior to 1 6U0 
B. C. This, then, is a fairly acceptable Egyptian date. 

In the next chapter, I shall try to penetrate the wilderness of 
Egyptian history back of the 18th dynasty, and after I have 
completed Egypt come back and take up ancient Babylonia, 
where I left it in this chapter, at the Tel el-Amarna period. 



CHAPTER VI. 

THE OBSCURE PERIOD OF EGYPT'S HISTORY. 

When we attempt to go into Egyptian history, more an- 
cient than the 1 8th dynasty, it is like stepping out of a lighted 
house into the blackest darkness. Petrie, vol. 1 , p. 29, says, 
"The real history of Egypt begins with the 18th dynasty." 
Back of this is myth, exaggeration, guess work. We know 
but little more about that portion of Egyptian history than we 
do of the history of the Indians or Mound Builders prior to 
the advent of the white man in America. Manetho, Egypt's 
earliest historian, lived 1,300 years after this dark period 
ended. He made a history purporting to run back of himself 
5,409 years to Menes, who is supposed to have founded the 
first dynasty. Manetho divided all Egyptian history back of 
his time into 30 dynasties and gave lists of kings for each 
dynasty and the years each king served. To add all these 
figures together back to Menes is called "dead reckoning" 
and gives 5,409 years. Up to his time no inscription on any 
monument or papyrus, that has been since discovered, ever 
mentioned such a thing as a dynasty. We find some of the 
names he gives chiseled on the monuments, but many given by 
him are never found, and some are found that he does not 
mention. The years he gives that a king reigned scarcely ever 
agree with that stated on the monuments for the same king. 
For several of his first dynasties no inscriptions have ever 
been found on the monuments. In fact there are no monu^ 
ments for the first three dynasties. Manetho's history is lost 
and has been lost or destroyed for 2,000 years. We would 
never know he wrote a history if Josephus, Eusebius and Afri- 
canus, all of whom lived from 300 to 600 years after Man- 
etho, had not stated some things that Manetho is supposed to 



EGYPT'S OBSCURE PERIOD 53 

have had in his history, and no two of these three later histor- 
ians tell things the same way or give the kings' lists from 
Manetho the same. When we add the lists of Egyptian 
kings' reigns taken from Manetho by Josephus, Eusebius or 
Africanus they do not give the same sum, and yet each is sup- 
posed to quote from Manetho. It is therefore likely that 
neither of these three men ever saw Manetho's history but only 
saw extracts from it or fragments of it. 

To show just how unreliable this man Manetho is, as an 
historian, I shall quote the estimate that is placed on what 
he tells us about the 1 8th and 1 9th Egyptian dynasties. The 
monuments give us more information about these two dynasties 
than any others. Enc. Bri., vol. 9, p. 79, says: "For the 
19th dynasty Manetho's figures are wrong wherever we c<in 
check them; the names, too, are seriously faulty. In the 
18th dynasty he has too many names and few are clearly 
identifiable, while his numbers are incomprehensible." Thie 
is the historian from whom the critics get their data to over- 
throw the chronology of the Bible. They reject him them- 
selves when they have the evidence of the monuments, but 
they insist that the rest of us accept Manetho's more ancient 
and still less reliable writings! 

Breasted, p. 182, says, "Manetho's three dynasties of 
Shepherds, or Hyksos, ( 1 5th to 1 7th) are totally without 
support from the contemporary monuments in the matter of 
the duration of the Hyksos supremacy in Egypt." This 
author then says that kings were ruling at Thebes and other 
places at the time of the Hyksos. I am quite certain that the 
kings of the 12th dynasty were included and that dynasxy 
ended about the time the 1 8th began. 

Away back of Manetho, in the 18th dynasty, King Tahut- 
mes III tried to make a list of kings preceding him, but Petrie, 



54 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

p. 19, vol. 1, says Tahutmes' list "Had only half remembered 
and guessed at speculations." It was so miserable that it proves 
there were no materials back of his day from Which to con- 
struct a historical list. About 150 years later, in the 19th 
dynasty, Seti I, had lists made but they are meager compared 
with Manetho's and do not agree with his. One thousand 
years after Seti's time Manetho made his lists and divided all 
the times back of him into 30 dynasties, a thing never men- 
tioned by any inscription before his day. All historians tell 
us that Manetho's lists of kings are not to be depended upon, 
for they are not supported by what we find in the more an- 
cient inscriptions and most of the names he gives are never 
found anywhere else, especially for the period we are now 
considering back of the 18th dynasty. Another thing must 
not be forgotten, and that is that no list back of Manetho gives 
the length of reign of any king. Think of a historian giving 
lists of kings running back of him more than 5,000 years, 
as he says, and giving the years they reign when no such 
records had ever been kept! When a historian tells you that 
Egyptian history runs 5,000 years back of the Christian era, 
ask him how he gets that, and he must lidmit that it comes 
from "dead reckoning," that is adding the figures that this man 
Manetho manufactured, for we know positively that he had 
nothing from which to make up his dynasties. The ancient 
monuments give us a fairly accurate list of kings for two or 
three ancient dynasties, and right there is where Manetho falls 
down miserably, for his lists never come anywhere near agree- 
ing with those we know anything about. Manetho's lists are 
only considered good where nothing else can be found. They 
are always wrong when we find that which is correct. Breast- 
ed's Ancient Records, p. 35, vol. 1, says, "Manetho's 
figures back of the 1 8th dynasty are not worthy of the slightest 



EGYPT'S OBSCURE PERIOD 55 

credence." But why did he say back of the 18th dynasty? 
Manetho's figures are of no worth anywhere. Petrie, in his 
History of Egypt, vol. 2, p. 26, says that Manetho's figures 
on the 1 8th dynasty are all mixed up and different from that 
given on the monuments. This is the kind of material the 
critics use to overthrow the Bible dates for the Deluge and the 
first peoples following. 

Petrie, on p. 1 6, vol. 1 , says, "The first three dynasties are 
a blank as far as monuments are concerned." A few monu- 
mental inscriptions are found back of the 18th dynasty but 
undated and therefore do not help us to settle the time of 
that period. When were the pyramids built? We only know 
that some of them were built back of the 1 8th dynasty — poa- 
sibly 200 to 400 years ; you can get all kinds of guesses as to 
when they were built. Josephus says about 1 600 B. C. ; Wil- 
kinson says 2120; Breasted, 2900; Lepsius, 3000; Brugsch, 
4,000; Ridpath, 3892; Manetho, 461 1. If you want more 
guesses, you only have to consult more authors. 

The first period back of the 1 8th dynasty is the Hyksos rule. 
Manetho, quoted by Josephus, says these invaders ruled 5 1 1 
years, Eusebius says Manetho gave it 543, Africanus quoies 
Manetho as giving it 953; Goodspeed, p. 378, cuts this pe- 
riod to 250 years and Breasted, on p. 425, not to be outdone, 
cuts it to 1 00 years. If these authors have reasons to cut the 
latest part of that dark period from Manetho's 953 to Breast- 
ed's 100 years, what are the balance of Manetho's years, run- 
ning still farther back into darkest Egypt, worth? 

I have said enough about this period to show that the long 
estimates, given by Manetho and all those historians from his 
day to this, who base their calculations on his lists (and 
they all do), are utterly unreliable. 

I must repeat again that Egypt had no chronology and h>r 



56 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

time since the 18th dynasty we borrowed a chronology for 
her from Assyria, Babylon and the Bible. But now we are 
deprived of Assyria's help, back of the 18th dynasty. Let 
me illustrate the situation: 

Suppose you go into a very old cemetery, one at Rome, 
Constantinople or Cairo, for instance. Suppose you find in 
that cemetery head-stones and monuments of all sizes and de- 
scriptions — some weather beaten and others appearing more 
recent. Suppose you step up to one and read the inscription: 
"Mr. Cheops, built a pyramid, ruled 63 years" but no date. 
It does not say "In the 4th dynasty," nor is it dated so many 
years after Menes ; no date whatever to let us know when this 
man lived or whether the head-stone was erected when the 
man died or a thousand years afterward. And as to when 
this Cheops built his pyramid, there is not the least hint. Go 
to another grave marker, and still another and never a date, 
and a careful examination fails to disclose a single dated 
monument. How long since that stately monument over 
>>n the east side was built? No one can even guess. How 
old is this cemetery? 500, 1,000 or 5,000 years? It is 
past finding out. 

Just so is this old Egyptian cemetery we are talking about. 
Petrie, on p. 244, vol. 1 , says, "Only one monument in Egypt 
has a date and fixed era and nothing can be satisfactorily count- 
ed from it." Egyptians never thought of dating from the ac- 
cession of Menes, nor from the building of the great pyramid, 
nor from the Hyksos. There is no hint at any thing or any 
event from which to date subsequent events like we do from 
the birth of Christ or as the Romans did from the "Founding 
of Rome." Only one thing was ever used from which the 
least hope exists of fixing a date for an ancient Egyptian hap- 
pening and that is what is known as the Sothic Cycle. Added 



EGYPT'S OBSCURE PERIOD 57 

to the inscription concerning some Pharaoh or the erection of 
a certain monument was sometimes the additional fact that it 
occurred in a certain mjonth of the Sothic Year. This gives 
a basis for a certain set of astronomical calculations, which I 
shall fully explain in the next chapter and show that even this 
utterly fails, especially so far as it concerns the period now 
under consideration. So we are utterly lost in the darkness of 
ancient Egypt in dating the kings or the so called dynasties. 

Let us lay aside all desire to lie like old man Manetho and 
talk sober sense. I will give an example exactly like most an- 
cient Egypt. 

When white men discovered America, they found this 
country inhabited by the Red Man. There were found the 
earlier earth works, mounds and scanty inscriptions in the 
Mississippi Valley, and the temples and other ruins in the South- 
west, Mexico, Central America, and South America. But 
like Egypt, there were no dates anywhere. How long since 
the Serpent Mound in Adams County, Ohio, was constructed 
or the rock homes of Arizona formed? It is apparent to 
all that not even an approximate guess can be made. The 
Mound Builders may have been in the Mississippi Valley 800 
years ago or it may have been 2,500 years ago. 

Suppose now that some Indian of today shjould imitate 
Manetho and write a history of the American Indian country 
reaching back 5,000 years, as Manetho did in Egypt. He 
knows that when Columbus discovered America there were 
many Indian tribes, as there were "Nomes" in Egypt in the 
early day, each with its chief or king. Suppose from scanty 
traditions concerning certain lines of chiefs of the different 
tribes, he makes up 30 dynasties, running back thousands of 
years, what would it amount to? How much dependence 
could we put in it? These Indian tribes were existing side t>y 



58 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

side at practically the same time, and so it was in Egypt; not 
one succeeding the other, as Manetho intended his lists to be 
taken. That exactly illustrates Manetho's dynasties. Do 
not take my word for it, consult any reliable history. On 
p. 26, Rawlinson, in his Origin of Nations, quotes Len- 
ormant, a French author, as saying that the 1 1 th dynasty was 
contemporary with the 9th and 10th; and that the 13th and 
1 4th existed at the same time, one in one section of Egypt and 
the other somewhere else. Dr. Brugsch says the 10th was 
contemporary with the 8th and the 1 1th; the 14th with the 
16th; the 1 7th with part of the 15th, 16th and 18th. Baron 
Bunsen says the 2nd, 5th, 9th, 10th, 14th, 16th and 17th, 
existed at the same period as the 3rd, 6th, 8th, and 15th. 
Other authors bring other dynasties together. In other words, 
just back of the 1 8th dynasty, while the Hyksos ruled in lower 
Egypt, with their capitol at Avaris, there were several inde- 
pendent Nomes, or tribal states, farther up the Nile, so says 
Prof. Petrie, p. 180, vol. 2. If these dynasties were con- 
temporaneous, as stated above, it would leave the actual suc- 
cession: 1st, 3rd, 4th, 7th, 12th, 15th, 18th. The total 
time, covered by all the first 1 7 dynasties, probably amounted 
to less than 400 to 600 years, extending to 2000 B. C. or 
a little more ancient. 

It is known and acknowledged by all historians that the 
most ancient Egyptians came into Egypt from Asia. The 
noted Egyptian authority Wilkinson, vol. 1, p. 2, says: 
"Every one who considers the features, language, and other 
peculiarities of the ancient Egyptians, will feel convinced that 
they bear the stamp of Asiatic origin" and he says: "They 
entered Egypt from the East by the Isthmus of Suez*'. On 
p. 447 Ridpath's World's People says, speaking of the 
first people of Egypt, "These Egyptians were decendants of 



EGYPT'S OBSCURE PERIOD 59 

the older Hamites in Asia." Willis Mason West, Prof, of 
history in the University of Minnesota, on p. 11 of his "77ie 
Ancient World says, "Most recent discoveries seem to con- 
firm an old theory that the Nile civilization was derived from 
the Euphrates district." 

There is not a scintilla of proof that these Hamites came 
from Asia much earlier than 2000 B. C, possibly as early as 
2200 B. C. They settled at Memphis in the Delta, some 
distance from the mouth of the Nile. They were a quiet, 
peaceable, agricultural people. Some years later a second 
migration of Hamitic people, called Cushites, came from the 
lower Euphrates valley, from old Shinar. They went through 
Arabia, across the Red Sea near the Indian Ocean and on 
south into Africa and struck the Nile farther up the river at 
Thinis and soon afterwards joined the first settlement at 
Memphis, and these two kindred races formed the ancient 
Egyptians and built the first pyramids a few years after the 
same race had built the towers and ziggurats in old Shinar. 

In the next chapter, I want to show that the Sothic Cycle 
fails as a means of proving ancient Egyptian dates, and f 
also add a summary of what has been proven in these chapters 
as to how old Egyptian civilization really is and how the 
Bible i$ in no wise contradicted by what we know of Egypt. 



CHAPTER VII. 

THE EGYPTIAN SOTHIC CYCLE. 

At the present time Egyptian officials date events as we 
do, from the birth of Christ. In fact, almost the entire world 
does that now. 

Ancient Egypt began her years in such a peculiar manner 
that this fact has given a basis for a kind of astronomical cal- 
culation, as to the time of some of her ancient happenings, that 
is very interesting but is of very little value in ascertaining the 
date of any past event. 

Egypt seems to have taken much interest in the bright star 
Sirius, the dog star, known in Egypt by the name Sothis. This 
star and the sun rose together one day each yeai* at almost the 
exact time when the Nile, that great life giving stream of Egypt, 
began to overflow its banks, about the 20th day of our July. 
This rising together of Sothis and the sun is called that star's 
heliacal rising. 

Egypt, at some stages of her history, divided her year into 
twelve months of 30 days each, and then at the end of the 
year added an intercalary of five days, making 365 days to 
the year. She had no leap year, consequently her year was 
about 6 hours short. She called her first month Thoth. 
Now, if on the first day of Thoth in some year, say 1322 
B. C, the sun and Sirius rose together, then one year later 
(that is 365 days) when the first morning of Thoth came, the 
star was 6 hours behind, for it takes about 365 1-4 days to 
get back to where it was one year previous. The Egyptians 
observed this. In four years the star was one day behind, fn 
28 years it was one week behind and in 1461 years it was a 
whole year behind, and consequently the sun and Sothis once 
again rose together on the first day of Thoth. This, first 



THE EGYPTIAN SOTHIC CYCLE 61 

day of Thoth was their New Year Day, but unless they moved 
their New Year Day back or forward, it would only once in 
1461 years fall on the day when the sun and Sothis rose to- 
gether at the time of the annual overflow of the Nile. 

We call this "1461 years," the Sothic Cycle Period. Now, 
during this cycle the sun and Sothis would be coming up to- 
gether once each year, but all the time shifting one-fourth or 
a day later. Sometimes an inscription would state that this 
event, the heliacal rising of Sothis, occurred on a certain day 
of a certain month when a certain king reigned. If it was 
about the end of the third month, for instance, then we would 
know that about one- fourth of the Cycle had gone by. Now 
if we can give the year when one of these Cycles began, and 
subtract the one fourth Cycle (about 365 years) we would 
get the date of that king's reign. Each Egyptian month had 
30 days and the names were: 

First month, Thoth; second month, Paophi; third montn, 
Athyr; fourth month, Khoiak; fifth month, Tybi; sixth month, 
Mekhir ; seventh month, Phamenoth ; eighth month, Pharmuthi ; 
ninth month, Pakhons; tenth month, Payni; eleventh month, 
Epeiphi; twelth month, Merose. 

They called the intercalary month Epagomenae. 

Their first month Thoth, at the beginning of a Cycle, be- 
gan on about our July 20th, and that was their New Year 
Day. 

Since the annual overflow of the Nile began each year 
about the time when the sun and Sothis came up together in 
the early morning, and as this heliacal rising of Sothis was 
dropping back one-fourth day in the month, each year, and 
dropped a day behind in 4 years, then it would drop a month 
behind in 120 years, and instead of coming up the first day 
of Thoth, it would be the first day of the second month, Pao- 



62 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

phi, and in another 1 20 years it would occur the first day of 
the third month, Athyr, etc., etc. 

The Egyptians often held a feast on this Sothis occasion 
and if it be found that an inscription stated that this feast oc- 
curred on the first day of Paophi, we would know that 120 
years had gone by since the Cycle began (if they always 
counted 365 days to the year and never set the beginning 
back or forward) and this gives mathematicians data from 
which to calculate, provided we can be sure when one of these 
Cycles began. 

We have the statement of an astronomer named Censorinus, 
who lived about 240 A. D., that one such Cycle began in 
the year 1 39 A. D. If this be correct, by going back 1461 
years, we get the beginning of another Cycle period, 1 322 B. 
C, and again add 1461 and we get 2783 B. C, another 
Sothic period, if there were any antediluvians there to be- 
hold it; and still another period began in 4244 B. C, a few 
years prior to the time when Adam and Eve were dressed in 
fig leaves. 

This is ingenious, to say the least, but how are we to ap- 
ply it? If 139 A. D. was a Cycle period, then 1322 would 
be another, if they always counted 365 days to a year and it 
this 1 39 A. D. is correct, which nobody knows. But what 
of it? 

They have found an inscription that one such New Year 
Cycle period began in the reign of "Menophres." But they 
do not know any king by that name. Lepsius said it was an 
inciorrect spelling for Merneptah, and therefore he dated this 
king of the 19th dynasty, 1322 B. C. and dated other kings 
back of that time from this "p rove n date." But this was found 
to conflict with dates otherwise known, and his scheme has 
therefore been abandoned. Then Mahler found another 



THE EGYPTIAN SOTHIC CYCLE 63 

"sure thing" as a basis, a Sothic inscription in the reign of 
Tahutmes III, and most recent historians are dating kings, be- 
fore and after Tahutmes III, from Mahler's calculation, al- 
though there is another Sothic inscription in the reign of Amen- 
hotep I and calculations based on it do not agree with those 
based on the other inscription. (See pages 30-34, Petrie, 
vol. 2). To make Mahler's calculation agree with the inscrip- 
tion for the beginning of a Cycle in the reign of "Menophres," 
they now make this later name to refer to another Pharaoh. 
What right have they to do this? Why not say by "Meno- 
phres" is meant Rameses II, for by the Ussher Bible date the 
year 1322 B. C. came in the reign of Rameses II! The 
Sothic astronomical calculation seems to be such that any his- 
torian, who wants tq use it, can make it prove his theory, and 
it holds good only until some other historian has another theory 
that needs substantiation. 

Let me now state several reasons why no dependence can 
be placed in the Sothic Cycle for ascertaining Egyptian date*. 

( 1 ) The inscription on the monument or on papyrus, which 
is to be the basis for the calculation, must be exactly true or 
the result obtained would be false; but it is known that many 
Egyptian rulers falsified inscriptions. For instance, Petrie, 
p. 88, vol. 2, says that Queen Hatshepsut erased her father's 
name to some events and had her name chiseled on, and her 
successor erased her name and added his to the event. On 
page 86 this author tells how Seti I, of the 19th dynasty, 
changed some of Hatshepsut's inscriptions from her name to 
his, while it takes several pages for Petrie to tell us how Ra- 
meses II made a wholesale business of putting his name to 
every notable monument he could find, so as to increase his 
glory. May not many of these Sothic inscriptions have been 



64 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

added hundreds of years after the actual occurrence, or so 
changed as to make them unreliable? 

(2) We are not certain, at all, that the ancient Egyptians 
always counted 365 days to the year. It is most likely, tor 
a long time, they only counted 360 days and added the 5 
days to the end later. Petrie, p. 244, vol. 1 , says that king 
Aseth, or Assis, one of the Hyksos rulers, states in an inscrip- 
tion that he "revised the Calendar and added five days to the 
year." Petrie thinks this is a mistake because it would spoil 
his whole astronomical scheme. If we are going to believe 
any of these inscriptions, I am in favor of believing this one, 
for it is the most reasonable of all. These Hyksos came from 
Asia, where a pretty accurate year length was known, and it 
is quite reasonable to suppose that one of these kings would 
do this very thing, when he observed how far wrong the 
Egyptians were in calling 360 days a year. Besides it is 
known that even after 365 days were counted a year, Egypt 
still used 360 days in some calculations. 

(3) One historian will not accept another's astronomical 
conclusions, but each makes his own calculations based on a 
separate inscription, and arrives at a different conclusion. For 
example, Lepsius took the inscription occurring in the reign ot 
"Menophres." But when Naville discovered Pithom and 
Rameses, and all historians wanted to date the Exodus about 
1 300 B. C, they immediately dropped Lepsius' data and took 
new data and arrived at an entirely new result. (Petrie, vol. 
2, p. 33, and Dated Events, p. 20.) They now accept 
Mahler's calculation which differs from that made by Lepsius 
by 120 years. Remember, too, that these discrepancies 
occur centuries this side of the obscure Egyptian period. 

(4) Nobody knows, to a certainty, that 1 39 A. D. is a 
true statement as to when one of these Cycles began. We 



THE EGYPTIAN SOTHIC CYCLE 65 

have the mere statement of Censorinus and we do not know 
whether he was telling what he actually knew or only guessing 
at it. Suppose he was wrong 100 years or 500, of how 
much account would ancient calculations be, based on what 
he said? 

(5) The very plainest of all inscriptions concerning the 
Sothic New Year ever found in Egypt was during the 
reign of Queen Hatshepsut, when she is made to say that 
she was crowned on "New Year Day, the first day ot 
Thoth". If that be taken as the basis for a calculation, 
it knocks off 300 years from ancient Egypt and puts the 
Exodus in the days of King David! They ignore this in- 
scription because they cannot use it. They also ignore several 
other inscriptions that do not count to suit them. You 
can prove ancient Egyptian dates by the Sothic cycle about 
as accurately as you can prove the age of the man in the moon 
by counting the wrinkles on his chin. 

(6) There are very many indications that several new 
rulers set the year back, or forward, so as to have it co- 
incide with the first of Thoth. The inscriptions of Hatshep- 
sut and Rameses III indicate that. Breasted intimates so 
much, p. 29, vol, I. If they did this, the Sothic cycle 
would cease to be of any use at all thereafter for finding the 
date of more ancient happenings. 

(7) Finally, Beecher's Dated Events, on p. 19, proves 
conclusively that these results arrived at by the Sothic calcu- 
lations contradict the Assyrian dates, that these same authors 
accept and use in other cases, neither do the Sothic conclu- 
sions agree with the sum of the minimum Egyptian dates. 
If my readers turn back to Chapter V, they will see that 
I prove that Shishak was reigning at about 1000 B. C, 
and that the Assyrian dates were too short, as the minimum 



66 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

Egyptian dates added together give more years. The same 
thing is true reaching back to the time when the historians 
apply these astronomical Sothic calculations. Any reader 
can see this for himself on pages 426-433 of Breasted's 
Egyptian history. 

Therefore, my firm belief is that there is nothing certain 
in this scheme for counting dates and I drop the matter 
with this quotation from Beecher: "Each claim in this Sothic 
calculation has links of solid steel of mathematical calculation 
tied together in places with rotten twine of conjecture." 

This Sotryc calculation is one of the "sure things" that 
is depended upon to overthrow the chronology of Genesis, 
Exodus and the books following. Other people may pin 
their faith to these dog star dates, but I cannot see my way 
to abandon the Bible for something that is contradicted, 
not only by the Word of God, but by the Egyptian monu- 
ments, Manetho's history and the Assyrian chronology as 
well. If a man cannot accept the dates compiled from the 
Bible, he certainly has too much conscience to accept some- 
thing else a thousand times more unreliable. 

As I now leave the subject of the Sothic cycle and Egyp- 
tian history in general, I desire to have my readers remember 
that I have traced Egyptian history back to about 2100 or 
2200 B. C., to where the Hamites came into the Nile valley 
through the Isthmus of Suez from Asia, and I also alluded 
casually to the fact that a second Hamite people, soon after- 
ward, came into Egypt by a different route; from Shinar, by 
way of Arabia, Abyssinia, Ethiopia, etc., to the upper Nile, 
and after uniting with the first Hamites, on the lower Nile, 
formed the Fourth dynasty and built the great pyramids. 
Fearing that my readers may take these things to be mere idle 
words, I must here satisfy them, that this is real history. 



THE EGYPTIAN SOTHIC CYCLE 67 

We have no proof at all that the Hamites, when they 
came into Egypt found any people already there. You will 
sometimes see vague hints in some histories that these Hamites 
found Negroes or Negritos, an indigenous race, in Egypt 
and drove them out. That is mere speculation and conjecture 
and not true at all. I do not believe there was a colored 
man on the continent of Africa when the Hamites reached 
Egypt, and it is only on the later monuments that we begin 
to see the Negroes pictured; and I shall show in its proper 
place that the Negroes are an offshoot from the Hamites. 
As I shall shjow later, there were likely thousands of ante- 
diluvians in Africa, but they all perished before the Hamites 
came and the former were not Negroes. A prehistoric Negro 
skull or bone has never been found in Africa or anywhere else. 

On page 455, vol. 2, Ridpath says, "The original oc- 
cupancy, then, of the Nile valley by the white races was cer- 
tainly by the incoming of the Hamites, first into the eastern 
delta," and so says every other historian whose opinion is 
worth quoting. These first Hamites were an agricultural 
people, but they were soon joined by other Hamites, who 
came from higher up the Nile, and the second immigrants im- 
mediately took control at Memphis, where the earlier Hamites 
had settled. These second immigrants had originally come 
into upper Egypt from Ethiopia, the region reaching from 
the upper Nile to the mouth of the Red Sea, all Africa east 
of the Nile valley. These second Hamites were Cushites 
and had come from ancient Chaldea, inhabited by the Sumer- 
ians, who were Cushites, a family of the Hamites. Ridpath 
on, page 444 of vol. 2 says: "It is easy for the ethnographer 
to see in the features and person of the ancient Chaldean the 
anti-type of the Cushite, the old Arabian, the Hamitic 
Canaanite and even the Ethiopian and Egyptian." The 



66 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

original stock of all Arabia, Abyssinia, and Africa were 
Hamites. This author, on page 450, says: "It was through 
the strip of territory, lying between the mountains and the 
Persian Gulf, that the earliest tribes of Hamites made their 
way into the southwest, and throughout the whole of southern 
Arabia are found linguistic traces of this ancient people." 
This author tells how ancient Hamitic inscriptions are found 
all along their journeys across Arabia and over the Red Sea 
into Africa. This author says, on page 452: "It will 
thus be seen that the Hamitic branch of mankind, which we 
have been tracing, was brought to the southern neck of the 
Red Sea, and if we attempt to trace the Hamites beyond 
their crossing into Africa, we shall find them pushing on 
southwest,*' and finally this stock of Hamites joined the others 
already in Egypt on the lower Nile. 

I have thus carefully followed both migrations of Hamites 
into Egypt because I use these facts for interesting deductions 
elsewhere. 

I want my readers to keep in mind that I have conclusively 
proven in this and preceding chapters: 

(1) That Bible dates and Bible , chronology from the 
end of the Old Testament to Solomon's time, 1000 B. C, 
are correct, and that the Assyrian chronology is short 44 to 
51 years from Ussher's and Beecher's dates. 

(2) That Amenhotep III and Amenhotep IV reigned in 
Egypt at the precise time when Joshua was overrunning Ca- 
naan. 

(3) That the first Egyptians came from Asia and were 
descendants of Ham. 

(4) That other Hamites (Cushites, sometimes called Ethi- 
opians) coming by way of Arabia, joined the first immigrants 
at Memphis on the Nile. 



THE EGYPTIAN SOTHIC CYCLE 69 

(5) That there is not one thread of truth in the state- 
ment that Egypt was inhabited by Hamites as far back as 
the Deluge, and that therefore there is perfect agreement 
between the true history of Egypt and the Bible, when the 
latter by Ussher's chronology puts the Deluge at about 2348 
B. C. 

Let us now take up the history of most ancient Babylon, 
or more accurately, that portion of Asia lying south and 
west of the Caspian Sea. I believe this region was peopled 
by the post-diluvians a good many years before Egyptian 
civilization began, after the Deluge. 




MAP OF EGYPT AND BABYLONIA 



CHAPTER VIII 

THE COUNTRY AND CITIES OF ANCIENT BABYLON. 

Babylonia is now a torrid desert jn summer and a swamp in 
the season when the rivers overflow. The country is inhabited 
by a few wandering tribes of ignorant Arabs, about the most 
degraded people of the entire earth. Scattered over the 
desert, are great mounds of earth and sand rising scores of 
feet above the plains. These are the places where cities 
once existed — Babylon, Nippur, Ur, Erech, etc., etc. When 
these cities flourished, the whole of Babylonia was a net-work 
of canals, distributing the waters of the Euphrates and Tigris 
to all parts of the valley, and it was one of the most fertile 
regions in the world, rivaling the Nile valley itself. The 
ancient cities in this valley were built of sun-dried bricks, 
sometimes faced by burned bricks. Every time a city was 
overrun and destroyed by an enemy, which was very frequent, 
and the inhabitants returned to rebuild, they had to level 
down the mass of sun-dried bricks, which had by that time 
become unfit for use, and begin another city at a new and 
higher level. The baked bricks were often hunted out and 
used a second or third time. Finally, a few years prior to 
the Christian era, the cities were destroyed for the last time 
and never to this day rebuilt. For 2,000 years the whole 
region was abandoned. The wolf, the jackal and the owl 
reigned supreme, disturbed occasionally by some dirty Arab 
who happened to go that way. A hundred years ago, 
travelers were attracted by these immense mounds, scattered 
over the valley, from out of which protruded brick towers 
and walls. It excited the curiosity of the scientific world 
and explorers were ( set to work to dig into these mounds. 
They were astonished to find, buried under many feet of 



g?gn*t ?5 «'nt£ 1 |4itA 



. A i«. i«» jj. z. £» ^ ■»* U4 AT *« AM U «, 

4-h: ^ '-^ M- & *» n * n ft* I s T 

iSt- >.*. r^: ^ V ftTT ^ ^~ .,, AA *~- JTTT A w'T 



6 
m 

00 
CO 

O m 

^ .2 
^ S 



<S U Pu v A ? S A ^ iw ^ *" A A ^ A a- A A d I 
£ U W ^ i irt i « H m iui - + 

iiii. v ?*— pr: *-*- , * . • 6 A *— , ^ * A 



5 1 
R § 






o 



ANCIENT BABYLON AND HER CITIES 73 

debris, whole libraries of inscriptions written on cylinders, 
steles and especially on baked clay tablets. But nobody could 
read a word of it. The writing was not by the use of the 
alphabet, such as we use, but y was a series of lines and angles 
made by a pointed instrument on clay tablets, while they were 
soft like concrete before it hardens. Then these tablets were 
allowed to , harden and the more important were baked, so 
that they became almost as indestructible as slate, concrete or 
stone. Tons of these tablets have been found, containing 
the religious and political history of these ancient cities and 
peoples. On another page, in this chapter, I reproduce a 
page of this cuneiform writing taken from Monuments and Old 
Testament — by permission of its author, Rrof. Ira M. Price. 
One traveler found ini Persia at Behistun some inscriptions, 
written in this old Babylonian cuneiform, as these strange 
marks are called, and also in two other languages, ancient 
Persian and Susian. He and others went to work to read 
them. They found that the three language inscription was 
the same thing written three times, because away back then 
there were three peoples living at that place who used these 
three languages, just as in Christ's time the inscription over 
the cross was in Latin, Greek and Hebrew. Only a few 
years went by until the strange language could be read, and 
thus the secrets of this lost race of people were unlocked, and 
hundreds of English books now tell us what these cuneiform 
tablets reveal about ancient Babylon; and the facts brought 
out by these tablets have closed the mouth of many a critic of 
the Bible. Before the discovery and translation of these 
tablets, skeptics sneered at what the Bible said about Sen- 
nacherib's army, about Sargon, Pul, Nebuchadnezzar, and 
especially Belshazzar. But they never mention Belshazzar 



74 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

now; it is some other part of the Bible they attack now, and 
ere long they will be forced to capitulate again and move on. 

When explorers go to the ruins of one of these ancient 
Babylonian cities, at the top they find pieces of broken pot- 
tery etc., belonging to the latest occupants, possibly the 
Parthians; when they scrape off five or six feet more they come 
down to another level where the bricks and corner-stones bear 
the name of Nabonidus, Ashurbanipal or some other ruler of 
550 to 675 B. C, thenj deeper down come other levels with 
the pavements of Burnaburiash, Hammurabi, Dungi, Ur-gur, 
Naram Sin, Sargon I, and beneath that some Sumerian inscrip- 
tions and other relics and then virgin soil. As the interval 
between the cities and inscriptions which follow the Flood 
and those which preceded, is so short no explorer can tell when 
he digs below Naram Sin and Sargon whether the relics he 
finds and the kings' names are post-diluvian or antediluvian. 
We know some of these kings belong before the Flood because 
the tablets say so. I have sometimes conjectured whether 
all we find in the ruins of some cities like Shurippak, where 
the Babylonian Noah lived, do not belong to the antediluvian 
period, for this city and some others were never rebuilt after 
some early catastrophe overthrew them. That disaster most 
likely was the Deluge. See what Prof. Clay says about 
Bismya, p. 24 and 25, which is another city that was early 
overwhelmed and not rebuilt. 

If an explorer in uncovering any ancient Babylonian city 
finds several feet of debris, between one pavement and the 
next below, he at once concludes that an immense number of 
years intervened. They would like to accept a statement 
made by Nabonidus that Naram Sin lived 3,200 years before 
the former's time, and to do this they put 1 ,000 years between 
the time of Ur-gur and Naram Sin. But in all these cities 



ANCIENT BABYLON AND HER CITIES 75 

the pavements of these two kings are quite close together. 
They explain this by saying that Naram Sin's pavement was 
probably kept clean. The fact is, the amount of debris, 
between the level of one king's time and the next above, is no 
indication whatever as to the length of time. It was probably 
not a hundred years between Naram Sin's time and that of 
Ur-gur. It is like the old plan of counting the age of the 
Mississippi valley by the yearly river deposits, or the age of a 
prehistoric cave bone by the thickness of limestone deposited 
over it. One "eminent" scientist (Anstey, p. 89) calculated 
that it would take 300,000 years for 5 feet of stalagmite to 
accumulate in Kent's cave in England covering a prehistoric 
bone; but another equally eminent scientist, without having 
seen the other's figures, calculated that it would take 250 
years, a slight difference of only 299,750 years! This is 
just as near as they can come by such calculations in these 
Babylonian cities. 

Prof. Clay, in the Feb. (1916) National Geographic 
Magazine, says that Nebuchadnezzar informs us that fifty 
years was enough to cause a temple to decay if it was left 
uncared for. This is why debris accumulated so quickly, 
and why several feet of such may mean but a very few years. 

The ruins of the ancient city of Nippur covered 1 80 acres, 
90 acres on either side of a canal, which in the book of 
Ezekiel is called the "River Chebar" and it was near this 
city that many Jews were carried in the Babylonian Captivity. 

Now, what do all these excavations and discoveries tell 
us as to the age of ancient Babylon? 

It is admitted by all reputable historians that the present 
races of men had their origin in western central Asia, and while 
a few place the original home farther east in Asia than 
Mesopotamia, the concensus of opinion is that this valley or the 



76 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

mountain north east was the original home from whence the 
whole earth was peopled. In a later chapter I shall quote a 
number of the best authorities, all of whom hold this view. 

Mesopotamia means "between the rivers" — the Euphrates 
and the Tigris, and is often simply called the Euphrates 
valley. Most anciently the upper part of this valley was 
called Asshur but soon took the name Assyria by which it has 
ever since been known. The lower part of the valley was 
most anciently divided into a northern part, named in the 
Sumerian language Uri and later called Akkad; while the 
Sumerian name for the southern part, which bordered on the 
Persian Gulf, was Kengi and was by the Semites known 
as Sumer and in Genesis 1 1 :2 is called Shinar. This lower 
part of the valley, made up of Akkad and Sumer, is generally 
known as Babylonia or Chaldea. 

In Assyria the most ancient cities were Nineveh, Calah, 
Opis and Asshur, two of which are mentioned in Genesis 
10:1 1. In the southern half of the valley, which we shall 
generally call Babylonia, were the cities mentioned in Genesis 
10:10, 11 and some others the most noted of which were : 
Erech, but called by the Sumerian' s Uruk and its ruins are 
now called Warka; Ellasar, or Larsam, whose ruins go by 
the name of Senkereh; Ur, the city from which Abraham 
came, the ruins of which are called Mugheir; Shirpurla, or 
Lagash, whose ruins are known as Telloh; Nippur whose ruins 
go by the name of Niffer; and Eridu whose ruins are called 
Abu Sharain. These cities were in the south part of 
Babylon, while farther north toward Assyria were Cutah, or 
Kutha, the ruins of which are known as Tel Ibrahim; Sippara, 
now called Abu Habba, near which was the very ancient 
city Agade, the capital of Akkad (Accad). There were 
also Calneh, Kish (Cush), Borsippa and the most noted of 



ANCIENT BABYLON AND HER CITIES 77 

them all, Babylon (Babel). I think the oldest of these 
was Erech, built by Cain and named Enoch (Gen. 4:17), but 
almost as old were Eridu, Shirpurla, Shurippak (Fara), Nip- 
pur, Kish, Sippara and Ur. 

If the Bible account of the destruction in a world wide 
Flood of the antediluvian races, except Noah's family, be true, 
there were two beginnings of the human race — one from 
our first parents, whether that be Adam and Eve or Mr. and 
Mrs. Monkey, and the second from Noah's family, after the 
Deluge. It is this last beginning of the race that I am 
talking about. But whether there was or was not an uni- 
versal flood, all history points back to Babylonia as the 
section from whence all races came, and therefore we can, 
for the time being, ignore the Flood and ask this question: 
At what date were these first cities, mentioned above, originally 
built in the Euphrates valley? This will virtually tell us 
when the present races of men originated, for there, or near 
there, they lived first. Can we trace the history of Babylon 
back to the time when Kish, Erech, and Ur were inhabited by 
the Sumerians, the very first people who lived there after the 
Flood? Was it 2300, 3000 or was it 5000 B. C. or even 
a million years ago, as some fools say? If it be considerably 
more than 2348 B. C. then Ussher's chronology is incorrect, 
and if it be much more than 3000 B. C, then we must 
abandon all chronologies based upon the Bible and admit 
that the whole thing is not understood, or is a fraud. 

I think I have shown conclusively that Egyptian history 
cannot be traced back within 1 00 years of the Flood, but the 
first Egyptians came from western Asia, in or near ancient 
Babylonia; therefore the latter is still older, the very oldest 
civilization in the world, older than Arabia, Phoenicia, China, 
India, Persia or Egypt — but how old? 



CHAPTER IX 

BABYLON FROM 747 B. C. TO HAMMURABl's TIME. 

In chapter V, I have shown how Ptolemy's beginning date, 
747 B. C, is generally accepted for Babylon as well as for 
Assyria and Egypt. Back of that time, Babylon kept no 
year by year chronology. There have been found certain 
kings' lists, arranged into several dynasties, reaching back to 
the beginning of dynasty 1 of Babylon, in which Hammurabi 
was the great figure. How can we span this period from 
747 B. C. to Hammurabi, the sixth king of Babylon's first 
dynasty? 

We have already shown in chapter V, that Buraaburiash 
and his grandfather, Kadashman-Bel, both of Babylon, wrote 
some of the Amarna letters to the two Amenhoteps, just back 
of 1400 B. C. That pretty well fixes the chronology of 
Kadashman-Bel of Babylon at 1450 B. C. What inter- 
vened between this ruler and Hammurabi? That period is 
covered by parts of three dynasties, and the kings' lists give 
them as follows: 

( 1 ) Dynasty I of Babylon, 304 Years. 

(2) Dynasty II of Sisku, 368 Years. 

(3) Dynasty III, the Kassites, 576 Years. 

Those historians, who are anxious to run this history back 
as far as possible, have all along been adding the part of 
dynasty I, following Hammurabi, and the whole of dynasty 
II, to that part of dynasty III, down to Kadashman-Bel, 
who was probably about the 9th or 1 0th king of dynasty III, 
to get the years between this last named king and Hammura- 
bi. This made Hammurabi's date from 2500 to 2300 B. 
C, according to the historian Who handled the figures. This 



FROM 747 B. C. TO HAMMURABI 79 

would have overthrown the Ussher dates for Abraham, who 
was Hammurabi's contemporary. But as the evidence comes 
in, it is found that dynasty II never ruled at Babylon at all, 
as was supposed, but at Sisku and it was existing at the same 
time as dynasty I, and that dynasty III, the Kassites, came 
from some foreign country and subdued both dynasties, I and 
II at the same time, so we have to take off at least 368 years. 

Our historians have been pulling hair over the chronology 
of this period for years. At first they made Hammurabi to 
reign 2506 B. C. (Oppert's calculation, p. 1 09, vol. Ill, 
Enc. Bri.) But the new evidence has changed all this, so 
that historians have been compelled to bring Hammurabi's 
date down from 2506 tp about 1900 B. C. 

I have already told how Nabonidus, about 550 B. C, 
had, in digging down to a foundation of Naram Sin, said 
that ruler reigned 3200 years earlier. This made the latter 
3750 and his father Sargon I about 3800 B. C. Nabonidus 
also said Hammurabi lived 700 years before Bumaburiash. 
The correction made as to dynasty II, makes it certain that 
neither of these statements, made by Nabonidus, is true; and 
just here I desire to quote from the Enc. Bri., vol. Ill, p. 110: 
"These considerable reductions in the dates of the earlier 
dynasties of Babylon necessarily react upon our estimate of the 
age of Babylonian civilization. The very high dates of 5000 
or 6000 B. C, formerly assigned by many writers to the 
earliest remains of these Sumerians and to the Babylonian 
Semites, depended to a great extent on the statement of Na- 
bonidus that 3200 years separated his own age from that of 
Naram Sin." This writer in the Briiannica then goes on to 
tell how Radau, and other over-anxious authors, tried to extend 
this period but failed, and now a much shorter time must 
be accepted, and that Hammurabi's date must be reduced to 



80 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

about 1900 B. C. and consequently other more ancient rulers 
likewise reduced. 

This then, gives us a fairly accurate date for Hammurabi. 
If his dynasty began about 2000 B. C, and he was its sixth 
king, these five serving 100 years, (Goodspeed, p. 108) then 
Hammurabi was reigning about 1900 B. C. and as he was 
the Amraphel of Gen. 14:1, a contemporary with Abraham, 
and as Ussher gives the date of Abraham's going into Canaan 
as 1921 B. C. and his meeting Amraphel was still later, the 
Bible and profane history agree that about 1900 B. C. is 
Hammurabi's date. 

Before his day in Baby km there were only "City States," 
that is, scattered tribes centered about some walled town, each 
worshipping its own idol god, placed in a temple sacred to its 
worship. Only under two or three rulers, prior to Hammura- 
bi, do we know of any serious attempt to concentrate these 
separate cities under one government, and that was likely of 
no more importance than a similar attempt on the part of 
Tecumseh or Sitting Bull among the American Indians, al- 
though the inhabitants of ancient Babylon were ahead of the 
Indians of the Mississippi Valley in literature and agriculture, 
but not so far ahead after all, of those of Mexico, Yucatan 
and Arizona. 

Prof. Kent of Yale, a noted author, and critic, who makes 
the following statement about Hammurabi's date only because 
the truth compels it, on p. 9, says, "The great Hammurabi, 
whose reign of 43 years must now, in the light of a recently 
discovered royal chronicle, be dated not earlier than 2100 
and probably about 1900 B. C." 

Johns' "Assyria" p. 42, says that Shamshi-adad was 
Hammurabi's contemporary and on the next page the author 
gives 1900 as the former's date. This necessarily places 



FROM 747 B. C. TO HAMMURABI 81 

Hammurabi 1900 B. C. Another computation by the same 
author on p. 72 of his Ancient Babylonia also gives this king 
that date. 

In this connection I notice that Prof. Clay of the University 
of Pennsylvania, in his Light on the Old Testament from 
Babel (1907), who there gives Hammurabi's date as 2100, 
in his article in the National Geographic Magazine, Feb., 
1916, gives it as 2000 B. C. Later on he will drop another 
100 years. 

We now have Hammurabi's date, 1900 B. C, and it is 
the most ancient date that can be reached with any degree 
of certainty from profane history. 

Now, let us penetrate the dark period of Babylon's history 
prior to Hammurabi. 



CHAPTER X. 

THE DATE OF MOST ANCIENT BABYLON. 

The very earliest post-diluvian inhabitants, we know of, 
in ancient Babylonia, were the Surnerians. Their vases, 
statues, limestone slabs and granite blocks are found contain- 
ing inscriptions. These Sumerian inscriptions and other relics 
are found near the bottom of these ruined cities, we have been 
describing. These are the people who used that peculiar 
style of writing called cuneiform, and the Turanian language 
they used was older and not a bit like that used by later Baby- 
lonians. After they had built these ancient cities, Nippur, 
Eridu, etc., they were overrun by another race, the Semites, 
whose language was different. Doubtless, these new-comers 
could write, before they conquered the Surnerians, but they 
seem to have adopted the cuneiform writing, used by the 
Surnerians, for their own language, and for some time both 
languages were written in the same cuneiform, and the Semites 
studied the more ancient language, just as we do Latin and 
Greek. The sample of cuneiform, shown in a former chap- 
ter, is Semetic language in Sumerian characters. 

We find the names of many rulers of these most ancient 
Surnerians, such as En-shag-kush-an-na, Lugal-shag-Engur, 
Ur-Nina, Lugal-zaggisi, etc. No historian or explorer has 
the slightest idea how long these kings ruled or the order in 
which they came. I could quote pages from any of the books 
describing the Surnerians, and all admit there is nothing to 
indicate time or order when we talk about these people. 

Prof. Clay, in his recent excellent book, Light on The Old 
Testament From Babel, says, on p. 44, "Exactly in what 
order these names are to be placed, remains at present un>- 
certain," and on p. 37, "It is impossible to estimate the length 



DATE OF MOST ANCIENT BABYLON 83 

of the period." Hermon V. Hilprecht of the University of 
Pennsylvania, one of our greatest explorers and archaeologists, 
says, on p. 383 of his Explorations in Bible Lands, that 
at the time of the Sumerians "a number of petty states, each 
consisting of nothing more than a walled city, grouped around 
a well known sanctuary, are constantly quarrelling, victorious 
today, defeated tomorrow." 

In the National Geographic Magazine, Feb. 1916, Prof. 
Clay upholds the extreme date for Babylonia, holding that it 
will not harmonize either with the Ussher or the Septuagint 
chronology. But he is not able in his entire article to pro- 
duce any except this argument to uphold his more ancient 
dates: "In order to show that the period was longer, it is only 
necessary to mention that about 1 00 rulers of Babylonia prior 
to Abraham are now known." To show how futile this is as 
a proof of his contention, I refer the reader to my quotations 
above from Prof. Clay's book. There may have been a score 
or more cities at one time each with a ruler. In fact we know 
that was the case nearly all the time preceding Abraham. 
What he brings forward to back up his statement is no indi- 
cation at all of the length of the period. One hundred rulers 
might not indicate even one century if they were "victorious 
today, defeated tomorrow." I also quote elsewhere from 
Prof. Clay to show that some of these kings belonged back 
of the Deluge. 

It is likely Prof. Clay got his data for this Babylonian 
period as Goodspeed tells, p. 37, "Huge gaps occur in the 
course of historical development, to be bridged over only par- 
tially by the combination of a few facts with more or less 
ingenious inferences or conjectures," and on p. 42, "For the 
chronology of Babylonian history before that time (Ham- 
murabi's), the sources are exceedingly meager, and all results, 



84 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

depending as they do upon calculation and inference from un- 
certain data, must be regarded as precarious." 

Back of Hammurabi's day the nations were mere tribes and 
their wars were no more important than that between small 
tribes of Indians in America at the time of its discovery. 
Rawlinson, p. 43, says, "So far as architecture goes, the Baby- 
lonians of B. C. 2300-2000 were not in a more advanced 
condition than the Mexicans before the Spanish invasion." 
For all we can tell, from what we find of their remains, these 
Sumerians probably occupied Babylon but a short time. It is 
a no wilder guess to say one hundred years than it is to place 
it at one thousand years or more. 

The Sumerians are supposed to have been a round headed, 
black haired people; but this is only guessed at because statues, 
found at one of their oldest cities, Telloh, represent people of 
that appearance. They wore no beards and seem to have 
shaved their heads. Their enemies called them black heads. 

As I have said, the Sumerians were overrun by the Semites, 
an altogether different race. The latter were taller, wore 
long beards and spoke a language akin to the Hebrew. They 
likely came from the more mountainous country to the north 
or northwest. They were the descendants of Shem. Shar- 
rukin, or as he is generally known, Sargon I, was their first 
king and he seems to have gotten control of practically the 
whole of Babylon. His city was Agade, the capitol of 
Akkad. Very little is known of Sargon except mythological 
tales, but more is known of his son Naram Sin who also 
probably ruled all Babylon. The latter built temples and laid 
pavements in many cities, the bricks of which bore his name. 
When these two kings lived, we do not know. All we know 
to a certainty is that they followed the Sumerians and preceded 
Hammurabi. The Nabonidus statement "places Sargon 3800 



DATE OF MOST ANCIENT BABYLON 85 

B. C, and as Hammurabi reigned about 1900 B. C. it would 
put nearly 2000 years between these rulers. The explorer, 
E. J. Banks, who examined, at Bismya, the layers of debris 
between these rulers, on p. 205 of his book, says he does not 
believe any such number of years intervened. Prof. Winckler 
says 2,000 years is certainly 800 years too high, and when 
he gives chronology reduces it still more. It is probable that 
less than 200 years intervened. Between Naram Sin and 
Hammurabi we have a number of kings, the chief of whom 
are, beginning with Hammurabi and going back of his dynas- 
ty: Gimil-Sin, Bur-Sin, Ur-Ningursu, Dungi, Ur-Gur, then 
Naram Sin and Sargon I. The above kings, and those still 
on back of Sargon, (if all post-diluvian) likely occupied that 
land for less than 300 to 450 years. 

In most histories my readers will pick up, they read that 
Babylonian history runs back from 4000 to 6000 B. C. 
What are the facts, if there be any facts, from which calcu- 
lations are made that give such results? The date of Ham- 
murabi is the most ancient (1900 B. C.) that can be gotten 
in the usual way. Going on back, they take Nabonidus' 
statement that Sargon lived 3800 B. C. Then they tell us 
that Haynes, the explorer, found at Nippur, from top to virgin 
soil, a total of 60 feet of debris, and Sargon was half way 
down. Then, as this city made all this accumulation back 
of A. D., double Sargon's date and they get 7600. But 
they know Sargon's date is wrong, so they ease their con- 
sciences by reducing his date 1000 or more and thus reduce 
the oldest Babylonian date to 4000 or 6000 B. C. 

Shall we accept this? They ask us to abandon the Bible 
and take their figures thus arrived at. I am unwilling to do 
so. It is likely Sargon lived about 2100 B. C, and the 60 
feet of debris carries us back to Creation. Double the 2 1 00 



86 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

and we get about the Bible date for Creation. But we can- 
not tell, nobody can tell how fast this debris accumulates at 
one time as compared with another. The Euphrates and Tigris 
overflow all that region in the flooded season. At first the 
cities were on the level. The houses were of sun-dried bricks, 
possibly more often merely mud structures. After every great 
inundation they rebuilt, leveling up and filling in to get above 
high water. Possibly the first 30 feet represent less than half 
the time of the next 30 feet. It is about as if we ascertain 
how tall Josiah Allen was at 60, if lie was 5 feet tall at 
15, by multiplying by four. They have no data for the 
period back of Hammurabi. It is only estimate based on mud 
and it is just as reliable as that much mud ! 

Those historians who talk about the Babylonian civilization 
running back of the Christian era 3,000, 4,000 or 5,000 years 
have no more to substantiate their theories than has another 
writer who, in a jocular vein, describes the wife and family of 
the man in the moon and gives their ages. 

We have the greatest reason to believe that the Sumerians 
were the children of Cush, a son of Ham; that they took 
possession of cities in Babylon that had been, inhabited before 
the Flood, and that some of the relics and even inscriptions 
found in the bottom layers of these ancient cities are antedi- 
luvian. These Sumerians took possession of and built upon 
a civilization and a religious system left behind when men 
were overtaken by the Deluge. In fact, we should call the 
Sumerians neo-Sumerians, for I believe the real Sumerians 
lived in Babylonia before the Deluge and theirs was the race 
of Cain. The later post-diluvian Cushite Sumerians under 
Nimrod reinhabited the cities 'of Cain and adopted his lan- 
guage, his religion and his civilization. I have no doubt but 
that some of the relics unearthed in these cities may have be- 



DATE OF MOST ANCIENT BABYLON 87 

longed to a time scores of years before the Flood. Even the 
names of some of these Sumerian kings are antediluvian. 

I have said a number of times that the Nimrod Cushites 
built upon the ruins of a civilization that existed in Shinar 
before the Flood. This is exactly what the Babylonians them- 
selves said. It was as real to them as the Civil war to us. 
Johns' Ancient Assyria, p. 3, says, "They glorified their an- 
cient cities by ascribing to them a foundation in the ages be- 
fore the Flood." The great historian Boscawen says that a 
Babylonian inscription now in the British Museum reads, 
"These are the kings after the Deluge." This statement im- 
plies that their historical tablets contained other kings who had 
reigned before the Flood. 

Prof. A. T. Clay, in the National Geographic Magazine 
for Feb. 1916, says that a recently discovered, Sumerian tablet 
calls the Flood hero Ziugidda (instead of Noah) and Clay 
says, "It has been suggested that the Ziugidda tablet belongs 
to a series, fragments of which have been found, and that 
this series contained lists of kings who ruled before and after 
the Deluge to the time that the table was written." 

I have now shown that the post-diluvian history of Baby- 
lonia, like that of Egypt, does not reach beyond Ussher's 
Flood date and that western Asia was the first home of the 
Noahic races. Consequently, no other peoples anywhere have 
a history reaching back to the Deluge, since all other peoples 
emigrated from there. 

But the Sumerians, Egyptians and the Semites are but a 
portion of the human family that spread over the earth from 
western central Asia. Whence came the Aryans, the people 
of India (whom Ridpath calls Indicans) the Chinese, the 
Greeks, the Germans, the American Indians, the Malays and 
the Negroes? Our next chapter will reply. 



CHAPTER XI. 

ORIGIN OF OTHER ANCIENT PEOPLES. 

I have now traced the oldest two civilizations, Egypt and 
Babylon. We have found that, amid the exaggerated stories 
about how far back Egypt can be traced, it is impossible to 
prove that she was peopled much back of 2000 B. C, pos- 
sibly 2 1 00 or 2200 B. C. I have also shown that the first 
Egyptians came from Asia. Ridpath, p. 447, vol. 2, says, 
"These Egyptians were descendants of the older Hamites in 
Asia," and on the same page he says, "Chaldea and Elam 
were anterior to Egypt." But I have also carefully gone over 
ancient Babylonian chronology and history, and find that 
there is no proof whatever that her civilization reaches much 
I eyond the beginning of Hammurabi's dynasty, 2000 B. C. 
There is nothing but exaggerated guess-work that places the 
Sumerians, Babylonia's first people after the Deluge, beyond 
2348 B. C, remembering that they followed the race of Cam 
who were the real antediluvian Sumerians. 

How do we account for the Aryans, who in remote times 
occupied the plateau of Iran, southeast of the Caspian Sea, 
and later spread east into India and west all over Europe and 
now also occupy nearly all of both North and South America? 
If, as Genesis says, the second beginning of the human race 
took place in the vicinity of the Euphrates Valley, about 
2348 B. C, are the Chinese, the Malays, the American 
Indians, the Negroes and the Negritos, as well as the Ar- 
yans, descendants of the sons of Noah, and have all originated 
since 2348 B. C? 

If the history of any of these extend many years back of 
2348 B. C, then Ussher's chronology fails and, to a great 



ORIGIN OF OTHER ANCIENT PEOPLES 89 

extent, the whole Bible goes down with it. Is it possible to 
derive the yellow man, the brown man, the red man and, es- 
pecially the black man, from the sons of Noah? 

Right here I must gently and kindly remind Bible critics 
that they, too, are in the same boat with me, in solving this 
problem. All reputable historians and ethnographers say that 
the human race is a unity ; that is, all branches of the human 
family, from the whitest to the blackest, came from the same 
original stock, or first parents, and that the birthplace of the 
present race was near the Caspian Sea. 

Do not take my word for this. Ridpath, p. 2 1 , vol. I, 
says: "All men are from one original stock." This author 
repeats this, in nearly the above words, time and again, in his 
books. (Pages 120, 127, 152, of vol I). He also em- 
phasizes the fact that the races came from that first central 
Asiatic home. On p. 536, vol. 2, he says: "On the whole, 
it may be said that the theory of a monocentric origin of the 
human race gains under additional facts and the readjustment 
of right reason." Haddon, p. 1 3, quotes the ethnologist 
Kropotkin as saying "Mesopotamia was the cradle of civil- 
ization," and on p. 19, he says, "The earliest civilization of 
the world arose north of the Persian Gulf among the Sumeri- 
ans." Prof. Wright, p. 395, says, "The unity and the 
substantial anatomical equality of the races of mankind be- 
come more evident upon careful scientific investigation," and 
on p. 441, "It is significant, moreover, that the original cen- 
ter of the human race is located by the Hebrew's Scriptures 
somewhere in the vicinity of that place which has been indi- 
cated by all scientific inquiry." In the latest edition of the 
Enc. Bri, under "anthropology," the unity of mankind is held 
in a summing up in these words: "On the whole, it may be 



90 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

asserted that the doctrine of the unity of mankind stands on a 
firmer basis than in previous ages." In other words, it is held 
by nearly all scholars, Bible students, skeptics, critics, scient- 
ists and historians that at some time in the past, one family of 
human beings lived near the southern end of the Caspian Sea, 
and all other parts of the world were uninhabited. There is no 
dispute on that point, except by a few extremists, who without 
sense or reason assume many primitive centers, like Prof. 
Keane, who had all men, from many centers, descended from 
apes, one center being placed by him in the Esquimaux coun- 
try where there never was a monkey or ape, even from the 
remotest geological times. , 

Now, since it is true, that all are agreed as to where the 
first home of mankind was located, and that all peoples came 
from one human or simian pair, then it is plain that the Bible 
student is only confronted by the same problem as the "emi- 
nent scientist'* — that the race of one color came from that of 
another color. The Bible holds out that the original family 
(Noah's) was likely a comparatively white race, similar to the 
ancient Sumerian, Semite and Japhethite, while the evolution- 
ists generally assume that the original man was a black Ne- 
grito. But I can see no greater difficulty in producing a black 
man from an original white stock than vice versa; it is all the 
same problem. If all races came from one central stock in 
Asia, then the black man had to come from the white or the 
white from the black. A blind man can see that the Bible 
student has no greater difficulty on his hands than the Bible 
critic. Let me correct that statement: I shall have much less 
difficulty in deriving the black from the white race, for the 
reason that the lines of migration extend outward from the 
Caspian region like the spokes of a wheel, and the blacks are 
found far out on the spokes while the whites are at the center 



ORIGIN OF OTHER ANCIENT PEOPLES 91 

and always have been there. No black race ever lived in 
that Caspian region. If the black man was first, then we 
should find him at the center and the derived races far out 
the lines of migration. The truth about all these races is this: 

Just a little back of 2000 B. C, we find Hamites m 
Egypt* the ancient Canaanites going with them from Meso- 
potamia as far as the Mediterranean coast, where they halted 
in Palestine and Phoenicia. We find the Sumerians, who 
were Cushites, in the Euphrates valley; the Semites in Ar- 
menia, Elam and Aram, while the Aryans, the descendants of 
Japheth, were south of the Caspian Sea in Iran. 

For some reason, the Cushites in Babylon, all at once, 
swarmed out all over the earth. The Bible (Gen. 1 1 :8, 9) 
gives a reason, but profane history is mystified. Ridpath, p. 
450, vol. 2, says: "We don't know what caused the Hamites 
to leave Chaldea." They went east, west and south and 
reached all parts of the earth ahead of all others. Going east, 
they overran the Semites in Elam and ever after held that re- 
gion. They went on east, under the name Dravidians, and 
settled all along the cost of India as far as Ceylon, and when 
pushed on by the later Aryans, they developed into the brown 
races and peopled the islands in the Pacific Ocean, and still 
later degenerated into the Negritos of the Philippine Islands 
and Java, the Bushmen of Australia, and other such 
peoples. A branch of these early Cushites from Chaldea or 
Elam became the Mongols who peopled China, Japan, Si- 
beria, and later crossed over into America and became the 
American Indians. It is even thought that the Pacific branch 
of the brown race may have reached Central and South Amer- 
ica from the Pacific. Later the Aryans followed up the 
Dravidians into India and mixing with them, became the peo- 
ple of India, sometimes called Indicans. 



92 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

Another Cushite swarm from ancient Chaldea followed the 
coast through Arabia, over into Africa and on south into the 
equatorial regions and degenerated into the Negroes, and 
thus peopled all central and southern Africa. They also fol- 
lowed the Mediterranean coast into north Africa and joined 
that stream of Hamites, or Cushites, that had crossed into 
Africa and Europe from Asia Minor. 

That stretch of country from Elam, and in fact from cear 
tral India, west to Elam, then through Arabia, across the Red 
Sea into Abyssinia and Nubia in Africa was anciendy called 
the "Land of Cush" and the people are referred to in the 
Bible and among the Greeks as Ethiopians, but they were not 
Negroes. As they penetrated south into Africa, they, as I 
say above, degenerated into real Negroes. Edward Foun- 
taine's How the JViorld Was Peopled, p. 199, says, "In re- 
gard to the origin of the black and wooly headed races of 
tropical Africa and also the Hottentots and Kaffres, I think 
that the evidence is almost conclusive that they are descend- 
ants of Ham, and that they emigrated from Egypt." 

A third swarm, from the Hamitic settlements north of Pal- 
estine, crossed into Crete and the nearby Aegean Islands. 
When the Aryans later reached these islands they found these 
Hamitic Aegeans ahead of them. They, like the Iberians, 
Basques and Etruscans, farther west in Italy, Spain, etc., were 
a part of the Hamitic aborigines who are included under the 
name "Mediterranean race." 

We are hearing it said these days that the Aegean, or Min- 
oan, civilization, with its chief and oldest seat on the island 
!of Crete, is as old as 4000 or 5000 B. C. The truth is 
there is not a scrap of chronological evidence coming from 
Crete or adjacent islands on which we can base a date. All 
we know is that just back of the final overthrow of the Aegean 



ORIGIN OF OTHER ANCIENT PEOPLES 93 

peoples by the Aryans, about 1000 B. C, was this ceramic 
civilization. 

If it, were not for the fact that Minoan, or Aegean, wares 
from these islands were exchanged for Egyptian art, in the 
1 2th, the Hyksos and the 1 8 dynasties, we should not know 
whether the Minoan civilization was in existence as much as 
100 years prior to the Aryan invasion. That it takes thou- 
sands of years to advance from obscurity to civilization, as the 
evolutionist always assumes, is proven false on every hand even 
in our day. Look what Japan has done in fifty years ! These 
Aegeans from 2000 to 1500 B. C. had, before the Aryans 
arrived, 500 years in which to accomplish less than Japan has 
done in half a century! 

The Cretans had a language written in hieroglyphic which, 
when deciphered, one of these days, will again put to shame 
those wiseacres who have been handing out such extremely an- 
cient dates, generally false. 

The Enc. BrL, p. 246, vol. 1, says, "In Egypt at Tel el- 
Amarna, Petrie found 800 Aegean vases." This means that 
Aegean, or Minoan, civilization was, in part, as late as 1450 
B. C. for that was the Amarna period. Vol. 1 , p. 247, Enc. 
BrL, says, "After 1600 B. C. there is very close intercourse 
with Egypt" from Crete. This, then, is about the most an- 
cient date we are certain of as to this Cretan civilization, and 
the exaggerators would try to deceive us into accepting 4000 
B. C. as its date! Vol. 1, p. 249, this writer says, "A good 
deal of anthropometric investigation has been devoted to hu- 
man remains of the Aegean epoch, especially to skulls and 
bones found in Crete in tombs of Period Three. The result of 
this, however, has not so far established more than the fact 
that the Aegean race, as a whole, belonged to the dark, long- 
headed Homo Mediterraneus." These Mediterraneans, as I 



94 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

abundantly prove elsewhere, were Cushite immigrants from old 
Shinar by way of Phoenicia, and were the first people in 
Europe after the Deluge. During the first thousand years after 
their arrival and after they developed their ceramic civilization, 
the Aryans overtook and overpowered the Cretans. The union 
of these Aryans and later swarms of them with the more an- 
cient Aegeans formed the later Greeks. 

Enc. BrL, vol. 1, p. 249, tells us that Petrie found Cretan 
importations in Egypt which he places as early as the first 
dynasty. I do not believe Petrie or any one else can more 
than make a wild guess at this, for we do not even know 
whether there was a 1 st dynasty, and he has no way to fix Its 
date even if we concede its existence. s 

We have no proof that the Dravidians, the aborigines of In- 
dia, were there much back of 2000 B. C, neither does the 
history of China reach within a thousand years of that date, 
while the Moundbuilders and American Indians possibly 
reached) America even after the Christian era. Likewise is it 
as to Africa and Europe; there is not a scintilla of proof that 
the Negroes were in Africa beyond 1800 B. C, nor is there 
a scrap of evidence that the aborigines (Hamites) whom the 
Aryans found in Europe from 1500 B. C. to 100 B. C. were 
there beyond 2000 B. C. 

Remember, I am saying nothing now about prehistoric men 
who had been all over the southern region of the eastern hem- 
isphere, long before 2000 B. C, but they had been annihilated 
centuries before the Hamites reached those more distant parts 
of Asia, Africa, and Europe. The prehistoric man may 
possibly also have peopled America, back of the Deluge, but 
of this there is very great doubt. 

The Aryans followed up the Hamites into all the world, ex- 
cept Africa and eastern and northern Asia, while the Semites 



ORIGIN OF OTHER ANCIENT PEOPLES 95 

remained always near their original habitat in western Asia, 
except that the later Jews have scattered everywhere. The 
old original Arabs were Cushites, (called Ethiopians). Laier 
the Semites swarmed over those regions and the Arab now is 
a Semite. 

I have now followed the Hamite, or Cushite, branch of 
mankind from their original home just prior to 2000 B. C. in- 
to all parts of the earth and all subsequent to 2348 B. C 



CHAPTER XII. 

PROOF THAT THE DRAVIDIANS, CHINESE, MALAYS, AMER- 
ICAN INDIANS AND NEGROES ORIGINATED FROM 
NOAH'S FAMILY. 

I must now satisfy my readers that the original inhabitants 
of India, the Chinese and other Mongols came from the Cas- 
pian center, and that the aboriginal inhabitants of post-diluvian 
Europe, the Mediterraneans, the Ligurians, the Pelasgians and 
the Iberians, also came from western Asia. I must show 
also that the Negroes are degenerate Hamites, and that 
descendants of the Mongols and Malays peopled Australia, 
and the Pacific isles, and that Asiatic Mongols, crossing over 
into America, became the American Indians. In a later chap- 
ter, I shall also trace the Aryans. 

Ridpath, p. 508, vol. 2, says, "The Dravidians are prob- 
ably the oldest of the Brown races," and on p. 505, he also 
says, "The Dravidians are traced almost to the Persian Gulf." 
Hjaddon, p. 25, says, "In Susiana (Elam) there was a low 
typed dark race which is usually regarded as allied to the 
pre-Dravidian stock of South India." This author is an ex- 
treme evolutionist and imagined the "pre" on the word Dra- 
vidian. On pages 200-242, Baldwin, in his old but excel- 
lent book Pre-historical Nations, gives proof that the ancient 
Hamites went into India, and on p. 241 , he says, "If, as I be- 
lieve, and as the antiquities show, these ante-Sanskrit civilizers 
were Cushites, the Dravidian speech must have been a very 
ancient form of the Cushite tongue." This will be sufficient 
to show that I have good company in saying that the Dravid- 
ians, who were just ahead of the Aryans, as they went into In- 
dia, were from the Caspian center, descendants of Cush, one 
of the grandsons "of Noah. 






THE YELLOW, BROWN AND BLACK RACES 97 

Ridpath, p. 505, says, "A point in western Afghanistan 
looks like a place from whence came the yellow and brown 
races." That is, the Malays and Mongols came from the 
region where the Cushites lived. Baldwin, quoted above, 
on p. 265, says, "The ancient Malayan civilization, like that 
of India, came originally, we may suppose, from the old Ara- 
bians," meaning the old Cushites, who were what Baldwin 
calls Cushite- Arabs. Haddon, p. 33, says the Japanese are a 
mixture of Malays and Koreans. Ridpath, p. 508, says, 
the Dravidians, with an admixture of Mongols from the Tibet 
region, peopled the Pacific Isles even over to America, and 
possibly into America. Haddon, p. 36, quotes Percy Smith 
as saying the Polynesians came from India. The Enc. Bri., 
vol. 9, p. 85 1 , says that the aborigines of Australia were 
Dravidians. 

It will thus be seen, I have good authority for saying that 
the Brown or Malay race, originated from the Hamites and 
with admixture of Mongols, peopled the entire Pacific Ocean; 
and they had an abundance of time to do so long since 2000 
B. C. 

Now, let me say a word as to the origin of the Mongols: 

E. B. Tyler's Anthropology, p. 163, says that the old 
Sumerian tongue had analogies which connect it with Mongo- 
lian. 

Haddon, an authority on ethnology, p. 32, says, "Indeed 
it has been stated that in the regions of north Elam, Bak 
tribes, ancestors of the Chinese, learned the elements of Baby- 
lonian and Elamite culture." It is believed, then, that the 
Chinese are derived from this old Elamite center. These 
Elamites were Sumerians. DuHalde, whose great work on 
China is considered most correct, says, "Two hundred years 
after the Deluge the sons of Noah arrived in northwest China." 



98 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

Boscawen's First of Empires, p. 64, says the Chinese are akin 
to the Sumerians. Ridpath, p. 1 76, vol. I , says, "The first 
trace of the Mongols is just east of Cush in Beluchistan," and 
on p. 168 he says, "The Mongols went east, first as far as 
the Yellow Sea and Japan before they turned back. 

My readers will remember that in this chapter I quote Rid- 
path as saying that both the yellow and brown races came 
from near Elam. C. J. Ball, author of The Witness of the 
Monuments, says there is no doubt but the Chinese are de- 
scendants of the Sumerians, or both are from ancient Cush, 
and he devotes several pages to showing the similarity between 
Chinese words and Sumerian words. Anderson's The Story 
of Extinct Civilizations, p. 25, says, "The Chinese are in- 
debted to the Sumerians," meaning that their languages and 
civilizations show a common origin. Keane, p. 215, says that 
the new school of historians brings the Chinese direct from the 
Sumerians, and he quotes profusely to prove this. Therefore 
the Chinese, probably as old as any Mongols, came from the 
Caspian region and their real history does not begin to reach 
within a thousand years of 2000 B. C. 

It is scarcely necessary for me to say much as to how the 
American Indians came into America. All the evidence 
points to their coming from over the Behring Sea, certain 
tribes now existing in Siberia being hardly distinguishable 
from the Indians. Haddon, p. 76, says, "Ethnologists are 
generally agreed as to the similarity of type prevailing among 
most of the peoples of the New World, which points to an 
original common parentage. For instance, the coarse, long 
black hair is a prevailing characteristic throughout both the 
northern and southern American continent , and in other 
respects a resemblance to the Mongoloid type is equally wide 
spread," and on p. 36 this author says that the Malay branch 



THE YELLOW, BROWN AND BLACK RACES 99 

may have reached America over the Pacific Ocean from 
Polynesia. S. Percy Smith says the Polynesians came from 
India as late as 450 B. C. and did not reach the eastern 
Pacific, toward America, until as late as 650 A. D. 

I have now traced the yellow and brown races of mankind 
from the Caspian center to all eastern Asia, the Pacific and to 
America but I have said but little as to the Negritos, Bushmen 
and other blacks, bordering on Asia to the southeast. His- 
tory knows little as to their origin, yet I have no doubt but that 
they are a comparatively late degenerate offspring from the 
Malay-Mongol tribes. The Enc. Bri, vol. 2, p. 956, says, 
"It seems reasonable enough to assume that the Australian na- 
tives are Dravidians exiled in remote times from Hindustan." 
That is exactly what the Bushmen and Negritos are. The 
Scientific Monthly for January, 1916, has an article by Mayer 
describing the degraded Bushmen and the natives of some 
Pacific isles, in which he uses these words: "There is indeed 
some reason for the conjecture that these hideous people of 
Australia came originally from Hindustan where their modern 
cousins are represented in the tribes of the Dravidian coast." 

I believe we have a hundred instances of races degenerat- 
ing into barbarians to where we have one case of advancement, 
the latter invariably being due to an outside elevating contact, 
or to the sudden impulse given to a people by an apparently 
inspired man. It does not take man long to degenerate, men- 
tally, morally and physically. In several sections of the Al- 
legheny mountains are people whose parents, three generations 
ago, were from the most cultured centers of New England. 
Some of these mountaineers are now ignorant and almost 
savage and missionaries are being sent among them. 

I have heretofore shown, by incontestable proof, that early 
Hamites left Babylon and going by way of Arabia, leaving 



100 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

Hamitic structures and inscriptions all the way, crossed over 
into Africa to the upper Nile, and going down that river 
joined the original Hamites near the Delta. Those Hamites 
who settled in Africa on the upper Nile and, no doubt, branch- 
ing off into the jungles, degenerated into the Negro. Now for 
the proof: 

Anderson, p. 15, says, "One emigration (from Asia) 
led to a settlement in the hot equatorial lowlands of Africa, 
and thus in course of time produced the Brown-Black Ne- 
gro." But it does not take time, to do this, as the author hints. 
I have the greatest reasons for believing that many such 
changes come suddenly. A farmer, who has flocks of white 
sheep, goes out some morning and finds a black lamb born in 
his flock. He cannot account for this as he had no black 
blood in his flock; but here it is, sudden, unexpected, and a 
type that can be retained. If this farmer breeds from that 
black sheep, he can soon have a whole flock of that kind. 
That is exactly how the Negro came from the ancient Hamite 
stock in Africa. The color was repulsive and soon those of 
that black type congregated together and became the Negro 
race. That is exactly what Ridpath says on p. 540, vol. 
2. This production of "sports*' in the human, animal and 
vegetable life is a law of nature that we do not understand 
but it is constantly at work. Mutation, only another name for 
what we call "a sport," is now a recognized law of life to 
which I call more particular attention in a subsequent chapter. 
Prof. Rawlinson says, "It is quite conceiveable that the Negro 
type was produced by a gradual degeneration from what we 
find in Egypt." Keane, p. 40, says that the Negro in Africa 
kept right on degenerating. Where untouched by mission- 
aries they never improve, even to our day. Ridpath, p. 526, 
vol. 2, says that the black Africans originated next the Indian 



THE YELLOW, BROWN AND BLACK RACES 101 

Ocean where the Hamites reached in that part of Africa. 
Haddon, p. 54, says, "There is reason to believe that man- 
kind did not originate in Africa, but that all the main races, 
in that continent, reached it from southern Asia," Then the 
Negro either came from Asia or developed from the whites 
who came from Asia into Africa. But the black man did 
not come from Asia, for no trace of him has ever been found 
between Africa and Mesopotamia. Haddon says, suc- 
cessive migrations of light-skinned Hamites came into Africa 
and one "branch gave rise to the Hottentots." On p. 57, this 
author says Egyptian civilization had gone on some time before 
the Negroes came there in any great numbers which shows that, 
as a race, the Negroes developed later than the first Egyptians. 
Edward Fountaine's Hotv the World Was Peopled, on p. 
48, says that it is easily believed that the Negro is a degener- 
ate Hamite. This author also says, on p. 11 0, that one pair 
of turkeys brought to Europe 300 years ago has produced 
more colors than all the races of men since Creation. 

Dawson says, p. 276, that there is no reference to Negroes 
in Egypt until the 12th dynasty and their pictures are first 
shown on the monuments of the 1 7th dynasty. 

Hamites, then, were the first in Africa as well as in eastern 
Asia, and as the yellow and brown men, and almost certainly 
the Negritoes, to the southeast, developed or rather degener- 
ated from them, exactly the same was true in Africa. 

It remains for me to show that the Hamites were the first 
to go into Europe after the Flood. Haddon, p. 55, after 
telling how the Hamites came into Africa, says, "The earli- 
est of these spread all over north Africa; those who crossed 
the Mediterranean forming the European branches of the 
Mediterranean race." This author says, "These Mediter- 
raneans did not develop from the Paleolithic man." Just so, 



102 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

for all the Paleolithic stock had perished in the Deluge, and 
when these Hamites went into all the world they never found a 
living human being ahead of them. Those writers who want 
to uphold evolution, always presume an "indigenous" stock 
but all this is purely a product of their fertile imaginations. 

Worcester, p. 576, says, "The Greeks learned to build 
from the Cushites who were there first." Haddon, p. 40, 
says, "Various branches of the Mediterranean race first spread 
over southern and western Europe," and he goes on to say 
that all other people had disappeared before these Cushites 
came. 

Vol. 1, p. 250, Enc. Bri. t says, "A people, agreeing in its 
prevailing skull forms with the Mediterranean race of North 
Africa, was settled in the Aegean area from a remote Neolithic 
antiquity," and the writer goes on to state that the Cretan civ- 
ilization did not develop until about the Hyksos period, which 
was very close to 1600 B. C. Vol 1, p. 250 also says that 
Aegean civilization was broken up by invaders from the 
north (Aryans) after 1500 B. C. who were precursors of the 
Greeks. This shows that the Greeks reached the Aegean re- 
gion still later. Page 251 says the Dorians invaded the 
Aegean region about 1000 B. C. These two statements 
mean that after 1500 B. C. Aryans reached the Grecian and 
adjacent Asia Minor coasts, and after developing into Dorians, 
about 1000 B. C, again overran the mixed race which fol- 
lowed the first invasion of the Aegean Islands. 

This is sufficient to show that all this blow about a 4000 
B. C. Minoan civilization is nonsense, and is believed or re- 
peated only by those who know no better or "have an ax to 
grind." 

We have incontestable proof that these Hamites came into 
Europe not only from Africa, but from" Phoenicia and Canaan, 



THE YELLOW, BROWN AND BLACK RACES 103 

into the Aegean inlands and through Asia Minor, over into 
southern Europe. The Aryans, long after 2000 B. C, came 
up against these Hamites in Greece, Italy, Spain and probably 
in France and England, and they were the only people whom 
the Aryans did find in Europe. If the Aryans reached Europe 
from 500 to 1000 years after 2000 B. C, these Hamites 
from ancient Shinar had plenty of time to reach there, 
and develop and multiply. There is nothing to show that 
there were any very great numbers of them, except possibly 
in Greece and Italy. A few Cushite Mongols had also gone 
into northeastern Europe ahead of the Aryans. These were 
the Finns, Lapps, etc. 

I have plenty of evidence, then, that the Cushites were the 
first everywhere after the Deluge, and from them sprang the 
mxitated races; the yellow, brown and black men. But I am 
asked this question: If it be true that the Semites and Aryans 
found the Hamites in front of them everywhere, and it is next 
to impossible to prove how long ago this was, how do we know 
but that thousands of years expired back of 2000 B. C. or 
even prior to 2348 B. C. while these Hamites were spreading 
abroad ? 

First, we have shown that all these Hamites came from 
Mesopotamia, or near there, and that in this centre we can- 
not trace people back even so far as 2348 B. C. You can 
not bring the Hamites from Babylonia before that central nest 
develops; and therefore the Hamitic Cushites reached Elam, 
Arabia, Ethiopia, India, Crete and southern Europe later than 
2348 B. C. 

Second, if we can show that the Aryans did not leave their 
old central home in Iran until 2000 B. C. or later, then that 
gave the Cushites plenty of time to keep ahead. All I need 
show is that the Aryans swarmed out over India and Europe 



104 N A AM AH AND NIMROD 

from 300 to 1,000 years after the Cushites had gone into 
those sections. This I show in chapter XVI. 

I have shown in this chapter that the modern post-diluvian 
world was peopled by Noah's family, the distant regions first 
by the Cushites, and that the yellow, brown and black races 
are degenerated from these Cushites, under adverse conditions. 
In the next two or three chapters I want to show what became 
of the Adamic antediluvian people, and that when they lived 
in hard and adverse barbarous conditions they were known as 
Paleolithic men, and that those living in similar situations 
after the Flood were called Neolithic men. 

The next chapters will demonstrate when and where both 
the Paleolithic and the Neolithic men lived and who they were. 



CHAPTER XIII. 

SUDDEN DISAPPEARANCE OF THE PALEOLITHIC RACES. 

There are a few things connected with the history of early 
man that are mystifying. 

One of these is the sudden disappearance of the races that 
lived in Europe and elsewhere along with the cave-bear, and 
the mammoth. Anthropologists call these early people Paleo- 
lithic men. 

Another problem is to know who the Neolithic men were and 
where they came from. These are the people who inhabited 
Europe, Asia, and Africa some centuries after the Paleolithic 
men had disappeared. 

The third mysterious problem is to account for the perfected 
languages the Hamites, Semites and Aryans had from the 
very first glimpse we get of them. 

Geologists, ethnologists and anthropologists admit that 
they cannot explain the sudden and world-wide disappearance 
of the Paleolithic races, and consequently they cannot tell us 
from whence came the new races which succeeded the older 
races since the Neolithic peoples, certainly in Europe, were not 
children of the former. 

Philologists try to explain the perfected and diverse lan- 
guages of the first Neolithic peoples by saying that they had 
certainly been living ten or hundreds of thousands of years in 
the localities where we find them when history opens. But in 
previous chapters I have shown that this cannot be true. The 
Aryans could not possibly have been in their original home 
but a few years when history discloses them at 2000 B. C, 
r. heady with a completely inflected language. The same is 
true of the Semitic and the Hamitic Turanian tongues. 



PALEOLITHIC RACES DISAPPEAR 107 

The facts given us in Genesis, along with a little common 
sense, will make all these mysteries disappear. The Bible tells 
us that the antediluvian, or Paleolithic races disappeared at 
the time of Noah's Deluge, and to assure my readers that his- 
tory, prehistory, ethnology, archaeology, geology and anthro- 
pology all tell us that the men who lived with the now extinct 
animals in Europe and elsewhere, the long-headed Paleolithic 
men, disappeared entirely from the earth, except in western 
Asia, before the Neolithic race arrived and that the new race, 
in Europe, did not descend directly from the old race but were 
immigrants coming into Europe and elsewhere hundreds of 
years after the disappearance of the old race, I have presented 
this Paleolithic map and follow it with unimpeachable his- 
torical and other evidence. 

We know but little of the history of the people of this 
map. The Bible tells us about the children of Seth and Cain. 
All we know of the others in distant places is that we find 
their relics, chiefly stone axes and darts, and a few of their 
bones. The following quotations from historians, geologists 
and archaeologists go to show how much proof I have for the 
above assertions and for constructing such a map as the above. 
In most of these quotations I give the substance in short, but 
where I use an author's exact words I enclose them ini quota- 
tion marks. I always give the page, so any one can see that I 
quote correctly : 

(1) Prof. J. Deniker's Races of Men, p. 54, says that he 
cannot tell what carried away the Paleolithic races and on 
p. 308, he says that a land subsidence occurred between 
Paleolithic and Neolithic times. 

(2) W. B. Wright, one of the most eminent living geol- 
ogists, of the Geological Survey of Ireland, in his great work 
published in 1914, The Quaternary Ice Age, pp. 70-77, in 



108 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

speaking of the disappearance of Paleolithic man in Europe 
before Neolithic man arrived, says, "One finds it difficult to 
resist the conclusion that he had altogether left the country in 
the interval," and, "Between Paleolithic and Neolithic culture 
in Great Britain there is a great gulf fixed and no amount of 
research has succeeded in finding any trace of a transition 
between the two," and again he says on p. 109, "It is one of 
the most extraordinary and inexplicable problems connected 
with the Pleistocene glaciation." He also says it is even 
harder to account for the disappearance of mammals at the 
same time. Then on p. 239, he says, "It must be ascribed to 
the extraordinary and apparently world-wide climatic oscilla- 
tions which characterized this remarkable period." This 
latter statement by Prof. Wright certainly spells Noah's 
Flood in capital letters. I must quote one sentence more from 
the same author on p. 253, "Man appears to have left the 
country in the Paleolithic stage and did not return until the 
Neolithic stage." 

(3) R. R. Marett in his Anthropology, p. 54, says he can- 
not tell the manner of the passing away of the Paleolithic 
races. 

(4) Quatrefages, p. 58, says, when the Dravidians went 
into the Pacific isles in Neolithic times "they found them de- 
serted." That means that if Paleolithic man had ever been 
living on the islands of the Pacific he had become extinct. 

(5) Prof. Clodd, an anthropologist, in his The Story of 
Primitive Man, on p. 76, says the mammoths disappeared be- 
tween Paleolithic and Neolithic times. The same author, on 
p. 78, says there is a break in the continuity of man in Europe 
just before Neolithic times. 

(6) Prof. Haddon in his The Wanderings of Peoples says, 



PALEOLITHIC RACES DISAPPEAR J 09 

on p. 55, "Neolithic man in Europe did not develop from 
Paleolithic man." 

(7) Ridpath in his World's People, p. 497, vol. 2, says, 
the Celts (Neolithic people) going west from the Black-Cas- 
pian center found no people in France and England except the 
bones of former peoples in caves. Some authorities think the 
Cushites had touched the shores of France and England be- 
fore the Ayrans arrived but Ridpath and many authors say 
they had not. 

(8) Dana's Geology, p. 321, says the larger mammals dis- 
appeared in the closing of the Champlain sub-epoch, which was 
the closing of the Pleistocene epoch. Prof. Beddard's Ma- 
malia, p. 221 , says, "The causes of the disappearance of the 
mammoth are not easy to understand." I am almost mean 
enough to suggest that he read some good geology along with 
the seventh chapter of Genesis and inform himself. 

(9) The learned writers in the 1 1th Edition of the Ertc. 
Bri. evidently think that Paleolithic man disappeared before 
the Neolithic man arrived, as the following quotations show: 
On p. 849, vol. 9, "Neolithic man, generally speaking, is 
round-headed, and it has been urged that the long-headed 
Paleolithic species of mankind gave place all at once to the 
round-headed Neolithic species," and on p. 347, vol. 2 "An 
apparent break in the continuity of man's history in Europe 
occurs at the end of the Paleolithic period" and the account 
goes on to state that attempts to prove that the one race was 
born of the other has failed. On p. 583, vol. 4, the Erie. 
Bri. says, "The Paleolithic men may have died out or retired 
before their successors arrived." 

(10) The Review of Reviews for Aug., 1903, says, 
"When and how the mammoth finally became extinct is a 
matter about which very little is definitely known. It is pos- 



110 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

sible that some great epidemic, similar to the rinderpest in 
Africa, spread its fatal germs over the entire northlands, after 
which the floods, perhaps, completed the annihilation of the 
already sorely afflicted herds." 

(11) Brinton, p. 50, speaking of the horse, which was in 
America in antediluvian times but had disappeared, and after 
the discovery of America had to be imported from Europe, 
says, "But for some mysterious reason the genus became ex- 
tinct in the New World many generations before its dis- 
covery." That sounds like the Flood had reached America. 

(12) Wright's Origin and Antiquity of Man, p. 243, says, 
that Paleolithic man in America "became extinct through the 
fearful and trying climatic changes and extensive conflagra- 
tions and floods connected with the advance and close of the 
glacial epoch." 

(13) Keane, p. 1 0, says, "That intermediate period be- 
tween the Old and the New Stone Ages, which archaeologists 
have found it so difficult accurately to determine, and in which 
some have even imagined a complete break, or hiatus, separat- 
ing the two periods by an indefinite interval of time." 

(14) In a recent magazine article on early man, Theodore 
Roosevelt says, "The Paleolithic men were not our ancestors. 
With our present knowledge, it seems probable that they were 
exterminated as completely from Europe as in our day the 
Tasmanians were exterminated from Tasmania." 

I might quote pages on this point, especially from geological 
works, showing the great world wide disturbances that attend- 
ed the end of the Champlain age, which was also the end of 
the Paleolithic period. I do quote evidence copiously in my 
geological chapters. But this will suffice to show that the 



PALEOLITHIC RACES DISAPPEAR 111 

Paleolithic races did suddenly disappear, almost exactly agree- 
ing with the account in Genesis. 

If the disaster which destroyed these Paleolithic men occur- 
red about 2348 B. C, then from that date back to Adam's 
advent (4004 B. C.) is 1656 years. There is not a hmt 
from profane history to prove that Paleolithic man was on 
earth earlier than that. Nobody is asking for more years for 
the era of Paleolithic man except the evolutionist who insists 
that we must allow time enough for man to develop from an 
ape-like savage, But it is not true that man was first a beast 
or even a savage. 

The next chapter will locate, date and describe the Neo- 
lithic men. 



CHAPTER XIV. 

THE NEOLITHIC MEN AND THEIR LANGUAGES. 

After the Paleolithic peoples had disappeared, except one 
family, the new race began to multiply. From the very first 
they appear as three diverse races with three completed lan- 
guages, and we very soon find them in four important centers: 
Armenia, Iran, Shinar and Egypt, with less important centers 
at Elam and on the Mediterranean coast. 

This was shortly after the decree, elsewhere explained, 
ordering the races to separate. This was likely about Peleg's 
30th year, say a little earlier than 2200 B. C. The map, 
given in chapter 1 7, will show the probable locations of all the 
descendants of Noah about 221 7 B. C. At the time of that 
map, man had not begun to scatter over the earth promiscuous- 
ly, but quite soon thereafter, possibly not later than 2200 B. 
C, what is called Neolithic man appears. 

We must keep in mind that quite likely most of the earth 
had been populated long before this but all had perished in 
the Deluge, and these Neolithic men are the> who went into 
all the places made vacant by the disappearance of Paleolithic 
man. These Neolithic men nowhere found a living human 
being ahead of them, but in a couple of hundred or more years 
they were followed by the Ayrans, as I relate elsewhere. 

Who were these Neolithic peoples whom we find, soon after 
2200 B. C., going into all parts of Europe, Asia and Africa? 

The Bible statement is familiar to all, that the Deluge 
destroyed mankind, except one family, about 2348 B. C, and 
I elsewhere refer the reader to an abundance of proof from 
history and geology that the Bible is only narrating actual 
facts. There was just such a destruction of both man and 



114 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

animals as Genesis tells us. Then the earth had to be populat- 
ed anew. 

The Bible tells us this new race began in western Asia, 
not far from Mesopotamia. I scarcely feel it necessary for 
me to bring forward proof here to show that history and 
science uphold the Bible in this, since this fact is so generally 
acknowledged. I refer the reader to an abundance of his- 
torical references in other chapters in this book. Therefore 
we take it for granted that the new race started out from 
western Asia and that the date when they began to migrate 
was not far from 2200 B. C, for all history converges on 
that as the date when the Neolithic man appears. 

Who were these Neolithic peoples? No question is easier 
to answer. Our historians and scientists are very much to 
blame for encircling these races in a dense mist, when they 
could long ago have been identified as sharply as the Anglo- 
Saxons or the Normans. They were the Cushites, forced out 
of Shinar at the time of the Babel incident. 

I have elsewhere shown how these people went in all direc- 
tions from Shinar. They went east to El am and branching 
off later became the Mongols on the north and the Brown men 
in India, the Dravidians. They crossed Arabia and Abys- 
sinia and penetrated into the equatorial regions of Africa. 
They went from Libya, adjacent to Egypt on the west, up the 
Mediterranean coast of Africa and became the Berbers. 
These Berbers crossed from Africa to Europe and were later 
known as Basques and Iberians in Spain. Other swarms 
of the same race, possibly mixed with the sons of Canaan, such 
as Sidon, crossed Asia Minor into Crete, Greece and Italy and 
were later known as Cretans, Pelasgians, Ligurians and Etrus- 
cans. The Iberians followed the Atlantic coast into France 
and possibly even into the British isles. I said that these 



NEOLITHIC MEN AND LANGUAGES 115 

Cushites settled in Elam, east of Mesopotamia. Some of these 
turned north-west into Europe and became the Finns and 
Lapps. 

All these various branches of Cushites, in their early stages, 
were Neolithic men. This word Neolithic refers to a certain 
stage of culture, so that in some sections these Cushites were 
Neolithic men for hundreds of years while in other places, like 
Crete, they soon developed a culture that no longer warrants 
us in calling them Neolithic. 

I here and now assert and declare, without the least fear 
of having my conclusions overthrown, that these several peo- 
ples were the Neolithic races we hear so much about and so 
vaguely. I also declare just as positively that they nowhere in 
all their migrations, ever found a living human being ahead of 
them. They found, no doubt, as we do, the bones and stone 
implements of the Paleolithic races, together with the bones 
of the cave-bear and mammoth that had been in those coun- 
tries some centuries previous but had been annihilated as geol- 
ogy tells us. 

These Cushite-Neolithic men knew how to write when they 
left Shinar and we find their inscriptions in Arabia, Ethiopia, 
Crete and in some parts of Europe, but we yet know how to 
decipher but little of it. We cannot tell from these peoples 
themselves just when they first inhabited the regions into which 
they immigrated, but we can approximate the time by examin- 
ing two events, the dates of which we do know quite accurate- 

ly. 

( 1 ) We know that history converges on the first home of 
the race in western Asia at about 2200 to 2348 B. C. 
Therefore these Neolithic Cushites went into the distant parts 
of Asia, Africa and Europe later than that. Prof. George 
F. Wright of Oberlin, says, "Thus it appears that no geolog- 



116 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

ical facts carry Neolithic man farther back in Europe than to 
the period in which historical evidence reveals a high civiliza- 
tion in the valleys of the Nile and Euphrates." You will find 
the above on p. 11 0, Origin and Antiquity of Man. This is 
exactly what I have been saying, that the Neolithic men were 
in the out-of-the-way places where barbarians live. They were 
no more ancient than Babylonia and Egypt. 

(2) We know approximately when the Aryans overtook 
these people in India and in Europe, about 1 700 to 1 000 
B. C, and for northern and western Europe still later. 

Therefore we can say that the Neolithic races had their 
existence from nearly or even earlier than 2000 B. C. until 
they grew out of that stage or until Aryan races overthrew 
them. 

I have heretofore quoted Ridpath as saying that history 
recognizes the fact that these Cushites did scatter out from 
Shinar, but he says it cannot be accounted for. This author 
also, p. 445, says these emigrants from Shinar were Cushites 
and he thinks the Semites drove them out. This author, on 
pp. 453-455, follows these Cushites, just as I have indicated, 
into Canaan, Phoenicia, Greece and Italy, and on p. 458, he 
follows the Hamites up the Mediterranean coast into north 
Africa. The Enc. Bru, vol. 3, p. 765, tells us the Berbers 
of North Africa are descendants of Ham, and on p. 766, "A 
remarkable fact is that in spite of the enormous space over 
which the dialects are spread) and the thousands of years that 
some of these Berber peoples have been isolated from the rest, 
these dialects show but slight differences from the long ex- 
tinct Hamitic speech from which these are derived." On p. 
465, it quotes Flinders Petrie as saying that the Berbers are 
closely related to the ancient Egyptians. 

Nearly all over the Eastern continent are peculiar stone 



NEOLITHIC MEN AND LANGUAGES 117 

structures known as dolmans, megaliths and cromlechs. It is 
now well known that these Cushite Neolithic men erected these. 
They were probably places of burial or worship. On p. 487, 
Enc. Bri. vol. 3, we are told that these Cushites built these 
peculiar structures. 

Wright's Origin and Antiquity of Man, p. 122, says, "Evi- 
dences of the mechanical skill of the Neolithic man are the 
dolmans, and other prehistoric stone monuments of great size 
abounding in Western Europe." 

Keane, p. 454, quotes authority to show that the Berbers 
were dolman builders. On p. 527, he says, "The Picts and 
the similar people of the British isles were associated with 
dolmans and other megalithic monuments," and he identifies all 
these people as Neolithic men. On p. 527, he says, "The 
Picts are now identified with the Iberians who, as shown by 
Sergi, were a branch of the long-headed Mediterraneans from 
Africa. The identity indeed is placed beyond reasonable 
doubt by the fact that these Neolithic Picts belonged to the 
so called long-barrow period (dolman builders), * * * * * 
They were succeeded by a different type, tall and round-head- 
ed." On p. 538, he says, "In Italy ***** the whole 
land was settled by long-headed Mediterranean Ligurians from 
Africa in Neolithic times." On p. 487, vol. 3, the Enc. Bri. 
says the Basques and Iberians were Neolithic peoples. 

Keane, p. 525, says, "The Picts of Britain may therefore 
be taken as Aryanized Mediterraneans. I believe their orig- 
inal language was Iberian, which was radically connected 
with the Hamitic Berber of North Africa." 

Prof. Deniker, p. 55, says the early Basques of Spain were 
Neolithic men and Marett, p. 55, says the same thing. The 
Enc. Bri quotes Humboldt as authority for the same fact. 
Prof. Keane, p. 505, says, "There need no longer be any 



118 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

hesitation in ascribing all the other arts and industries of the 
"Aegean school to these Pelasgians." The new book Greek 
Archaeology, by Fowler & Wheeler, 1909, from pp. 92-95, 
'states that this Cretan civilization began nearly as early as 
Egypt and continued until the Greeks destroyed it about 900 
B. C. These authors say that the early part of this period 
was Neolithic. They date the period by connecting it with 
Egypt. That means, as I show for Egypt, that the Neolithic 
period in Crete began this side of 2200 B. C. 

Now a word as to the Cushites who went into northern 
Europe and are known as Lapps and Finns. These early 
aborigines were Neolithic people and the kitchen middens, 
described in a later chapter, were their work. 

The Enc. BrL p. 350 vol. 2, says, "For a variety of rea- 
sons it is thought that one of the earliest stages of Neolithic 
times is represented by the well known kitchen middens of 
Denmark * * * Thd race that made these mounds is believed 
to have been akin to the Lapps." Keane p. 340, says "The 
Lapps came into these regions at some remote period prior to 
the occupation of Finland by its present inhabitants," and on 
p. 337, he says, the Finns and Lapps are one people. W. B. 
Wright's Quaternary Ice Age, p. 109, says ice covered all 
north Europe when Paleolithic man lived, consequently no 
remains of man are found there until Neolithic man came. The 
upper half of Europe was covered with! ice at the time of the 
Deluge. During the next thousand or more years before Neo- 
lithic man reached there from Asia the ice had melted. This 
statement helps us to date these Neolithic Lapps and Finns as 
considerably later than the Flood. They probably did not 
reach these regions as early as 1500 B. C. 

In a coming chapter I am to tell about certain cave-dwellers. 
To prepare my readers to recognize some of them, I desire 



NEOLITHIC MEN AND LANGUAGES 119 

to say here that the later cave dwellers were no more nor less 
than these Neolithic Basques, Iberians and Picts. Enc. Bri, 
vol. 5, p. 577, says, "These Neolithic cave-dwellers have 
been proven to be identical in physique with the builders of 
these cairns and tumuli," and on next page, "This identifi- 
cation of the ancient Neolithic cave-dwellers with the modern 
Basque-speaking inhabitants of the western Pyrenees is corrob- 
orated by the elaborate researches of Broca, Virchow, and 
Thurman." Keane, p. 454, says that the Cromagnon skuljs 
are those of the long-headed dolman building Berbers. 

I could quote pages more showing that all these various 
Neolithic peoples were one and that they all were akin to the 
ancient Sumerians who were the Cushites before they left 
Shinar, but I shall not go into this farther. 

Prof. W. B. Wright, pp. 70-77 and p. 282, says that 
when Paleolithic man lived in France, all north Europe was 
yet covered with the glacial ice-cap and that consequently 
Paleolithic man never lived in Ireland, Scotland, Wales, north- 
ern England or Scandinavia, and that it was long after Paleo- 
lithic man had disappeared from Europe before Neolithic man 
reached these northern countries. This author quotes the 
great Swedish Geologist De Geer as saying that ice covered 
much of Scandinavia 7,000 years ago. 

Taking all the above facts into consideration, am I not 
justified in deciding that Europe was not ready for Paleo- 
lithic men until about the time Genesis says they appeared and 
that still later a great earth convulsion annihilated them, and 
that considerably later than all this Neolithic men arrived in 
Europe? 

I have repeated many times that the three great Noachic 
races had completed languages from the first glimpse we get 
of them, and that philologists are at a loss to account for it. 



120 N A AM AH AND NIMROD 

Evolutionists get around it by assuming that all these races 
had been in existence for thousands of years before history 
discloses them to us. But) they were so few and so close to- 
gether, that evolution alone will never explain it, unless it is 
admitted that these three languages were carried over from 
before the Deluge. That makes it all very easy. The only 
other alternative is to suggest that the Creator gave these post- 
diluvian peoples completed languages. I do not believe it is 
necessary to resort to this theory when the other hypothesis 
answers so well. Neither do I believe the confusion of tongues 
at Babel applies except to Nimrod's people. 

As to the existence of three perfected languages, the ante- 
Sanskrit, the Semitic and the Turanian, from the very first 
let me quote: 

(1) Rid^ath, vol. 1, p. 379, says, "The oldest languages 
with which We are acquainted were the most perfect of their 
kind." 

(2) Tylor, p. 13, says, "Earliest history shows the great 
languages in full existence." 

(3) Prof. Ihering, p. 10, says that the Sanskrit of the 
Aryan "was the most developed language of which we have 
any knowledge." 

(4) Wright, p. 71, says, "In the valley of the Euphrates a 
branch of the Semitic language appears in full development in 
the earliest monumental records." 

(5) The Enc. Bri, says, "The distinguished English schol- 
ar, Sir William Jones declared that the Sanskrit was more per- 
fect than the Greek and more copious than the Latin." 

(6) Myers, p. 9, says, "The rich and copious languages 
already upon the lips of the people of antiquity, the Hamitic 
Egyptians, the Semitic Babylonians, the Aryans of India and 
Persia." 



NEOLITHIC MEN AND LANGUAGES 121 

It being true, then, that when the Turanians, the Aryans 
and Semites were yet but few and living in close contact, they 
had diverse and complete languages how shall we account for 
it? Our friends, the critics and the evolutionists, who build 
all their beliefs on one or more hypotheses, will most certainly 
not fault me if I propound an hypothesis to account for this 
strange phenomenon of three new and closely related families 
with as many perfected languages. I do so in the next 
chapter. 



CHAPTER XV. 

AN HYPOTHESIS ACCOUNTING FOR THE NEOLITHIC RACES 
AND THEIR LANGUAGES. 

With all the facts already enumerated in the preceding 
chapters backing me, I shall now assume that the account of 
Noah's family in Genesis is correct, and I shall state the 
terms of an hypothesis and see if it does not meet the exigencies 
of the history of the early races and the mystery of their lan- 
guages more satisfactorily than any hypothesis that ignores the 
Bible account. 

An hypothesis is merely a working basis. It may be true or 
it may be false. If it meets and fits into the conditions, and 
accounts for the facts as we know them, better than any other 
theory or ) hypothesis, then it is likely true, and is the one to 
adopt and hold to until another is propounded which is more 
probable. 

I have conclusively shown that profane history does not 
carry us back beyond 2000 B. C, in any country, with any 
degree of certainty. History at that date reveals to us a few 
apparently meagre populations in western Asia and contiguous 
territory. 

The Bible tells us that about 350 years prior to the time 
when profane history first discloses these ancient peoples, the 
Paleolithic races of men had entirely perished, except one 
family, and geology and archaeology tell us the same myster- 
ious disappearance of these earlier inhabitants. 

My hypothesis is that the Bible account is correct in placing 
the geological catastrophe, which caused the destruction of man- 
kind, at about 2348 B. C, and that Noah's family of eight 
persons is the basic start for the new race; called the Neolithic 



AN HYPOTHESIS IS SUBMITTED 123 

man as soon as he withdrew from the more cultured center and 
in some measure lost his civilization. 

Noah had three sons who were married, before the Deluge, 
but to whom they were married the Bible does not tell us. But 
almost the last words of Genesis, before the Flood account is 
given, is a statement concerning an alien family, that of La- 
mech's of Cain's race. The account is particular in giving 
the names of the husband, two wives, three sons and one 
daughter. Why? Because this family has to do with events 
that are to affect history after the Deluge. The blood of this 
family is to mingle in the new race to be given a trial after 
the Flood. 

God works by natural laws nearly always. God knows of 
a great many natural laws that we never heard of and he uses 
them, and when he sees fit to overstep natural laws to ac- 
complish his purposes, I see no reason why he may not do so. 
But in this case I see nothing but natural law in the hands of 
an intelligent Creator. He very likely applied Mendel's 
law, unknown to man until recently, to rapidly diverge the new 
races. 

The new races are to grow out of the old ones and the new 
languages and the new religions are but natural outgrowths of 
the old, under the superintendency of an allwise Creator al- 
ways. 

What I now proceed to give in this chapter is purely an 
hypothesis and I do not want it looked upon otherwise. 

My hypothesis is that Adah was a descendant of Abel or 
of a later son of Adam, and that her people had their habitat 
on the plateau of Iran for centuries before the Deluge. More- 
over, I theorize that she spoke and wrote the ancient language 
of her people— the mother tongue of the Sanskrit, the Greek, 
the Latin and the Hindoo. Adah was the grandmother of 



124 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

Japheth's wife who was taught the language, literature and 
religion of her father's people. Likewise Naamah, daughter 
of Zillah, was Ham's wife, and she spoke and wrote the 
language of the Sumerian branch of Cain's race. She may also 
have been familiar with the hieroglyphic literature and tongue of 
Egypt. Her mother, Zillah, may have been of that stock 
of antediluvian people. Shem likely obeyed the law of 
Noah's race and married within the clan. 

The two foreign wives, of Japheth and Ham, very soon 
caused friction (Gen. 9:25) in the Noah family after they 
landed from the ark, and forthwith, possibly in less than 25 
years, Japheth's wife led him to her people's ancient home to 
the east and Ham's wife led her clan to her old home in 
Shinar. 

In Western Asia therefore, very shortly after the Deluge, 
we find the nucleus of three distinct races speaking the three 
great antediluvian tongues: 

( 1 ) The Semites, using the language of Noah's fore- 
fathers closely akin to the Hebrew. 

(2) The Aryans using the Sanskrit mother tongue, which 
was that in use by the antediluvian descendants of Abel or of 
a younger son of Adam. 

(3) Ham's family in Shinar using the Sumerian tongue and 
cuneiform of Cain's people. 

But these great races are too near together for proper growth 
and expansion. God takes a hand. He issues a degree 
through Noah that Africa shall be allotted to Ham, Europe 
to Japheth and Shem is to remain in Asia. Japheth reluctantly 
obeys, except the Indian branch of his race, which, under some 
rebellious leader, refuses to go west and bolts off east. Ham 
obeys at once, and emigrates to Egypt, dropping off the fam- 



AN HYPOTHESIS IS SUBMITTED 125 

ily of Canaan on the Mediterranean coast. On arriving in 
Egypt, Ham's clan adapts itself to the hieroglyphic tongue of 
the antediluvian Egyptians who had previously inhabited the 
great Nile valley. 

One branch of Ham's family openly rebelled against leav- 
ing Shinar, and began at once to fortify the place against 
ejectment. This was the family of Cush who under Nimrod 
defied both God and Noah and remained in Shinar until 
(Gen. 1 1 :9) God drove them out. The Semites, knowing 
that the decree gave them that country, may have, as Ridpath 
surmises, helped drive the Cushites out. Indeed, almost im- 
mediately we find Sargon at the head of the children of Shem 
taking control of all Babylonia. 

If these Cushite Sumerians were driven out of Shinar about 
2200 B. C, there may have been more than 60,000 of them 
(see my calculations in chapter 17). This dispersion at 
Babel sent these Cushites into the uttermost parts of the 
earth ; into Asia, Africa, Europe and ultimately into America, 
for the American Indians were of this race. 

This dispersion of the Cushites was 200 years before the 
Aryans had thought of leaving Iran. But at last the time 
has come for Japheth to be "enlarged" (Gen. 9:27). They 
go to India and amalgamate with the Dravidians or drive 
them out. They do the same all over Europe and centuries 
later spread all over America, all of which I narrate in the 
next chapter. 



CHAPTER XVI. 

OUR REMARKABLE FOREFATHERS, THE ARYANS, OR INDO- 
EUROPEANS. 

The Aryans, often called Indo-Europeans, because they 
peopled both India and Europe, are the descendants of Japh- 
eth, and are the people from whom the English races came, 
as well as that from which developed the Greeks, Italians, 
Germans, French, Russians and practically all Europeans, 
the only exceptions being a few yet remaining of the Mediter- 
ranean Hamites and Finns who preceded the Aryans into 
Europe, and such Mongols as the Turks, and Huns who 
came into Europe long after the Aryans. 

A few historians think the original home of the Aryans 
may have been in Europe, south of the Baltic Sea, but there 
are a thousand reasons for placing their old home near the 
south end of the Caspian Sea in Asia, to where there is one 
argument for thinking they developed in Europe. Ridpath 
p. 161, vol. 1, says, "The whole Aryan tradition and all the 
testimony of history point unmistakably to an Asiatic origin 
for the ancestors of the great peoples of Europe and the west," 
and on p. 162, "Indeed it is certain that the ancestors of 
European- Aryan peoples came out of western Asia." 

In this chapter I want to show that these Aryans did not 
enter either India or Europe until 2000 B. C, or later, and 
I want, incidentally, to mention a few dates of certain Ham- 
ites, in both Asia and Europe, just ahead of the Aryans. 

Just here I want to beg pardon, in advance, for a tew 
harsh things that I am liable to say about Bible critics for the 
exaggerated statements they have been handing out to us 
about these Aryans, and dates for ancient people generally. 
If I apply the nasty little word liar to some of these would-be 



128 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

historians, ethnologists and scientists, do not be surprised, for 
I have grown weary reading the bare-faced falsehoods these 
fellows have been dishing! out to the rest of us. 

These Aryans had a finished language in their old home 
before they separated, and therefore "it must have taken thou- 
sands of years for them to have reached such a stage," the 
evolutionists tell us. "Reach such a stage" from what? A 
stage from savagery? I defy these bald exaggerators to pro- 
duce any proof whatever that the Aryans ever were savages, 
back of 2000 B. C, where we first find them on the plains 
of Iran. This idea that mankind were first savages is a base 
fabrication, and the men who originated this idea ought to be 
in the insane asylum. They are the only class of men who 
make me sometimes lean to the idea that there is some baboon 
blood in human veins. 

Eduard Meyer, one of our safest and latest historians, says 
the Aryans remained in the region east of the Aral and Cas- 
pian Sea until about 2000 B. C, and afterward went west- 
ward and eastward (see his German work XLII, p. 16). 
Haddon, p. 20, says that the expansion of the Aryans in 
eastern Iran occurred between 2300 and 2000 B. C. By this 
he means that they may have left there as late as 2000 B. C, 
and this author also says that Aryan bands are found in 
Mitanni, on the upper Euphrates, about 1500 B. C. They 
were thus on their way to Europe. On the same page this 
author follows the Aryans into Punjab, India, in 1 700 B. C. 
Then on p. 27, he says, "The first migration into India of 
which we have evidence is that of Aryan-speaking peoples, 
perhaps early in the 2nd millennium B. C," that is, this side 
of 2000 B. C. You must remember that this is hundreds of 
years after the Dravidians had gone into that region by the 
proofs I gave in a former chapter. Ridpath, pp. 644, 654, 



OUR REMARKABLE FOREFATHERS 129 

vol. 2, says the Indians left the old centre more than 2000 
B. C. and that Greek and Sanskrit originated long afterward. 
Therefore the Greeks went into Europe "long after" B. C. 
2000. On p. 687 this author says, "At what time the In- 
dians came into India it is not possible to know." He means 
by this that it cannot be determined how long after 2000 B. C. 
they went into India. I doubt very much whether at 1500 
B. C. they had more than touched the borders of India and 
would scarcely believe they left Iran as early as 2000 B. C, 
were it not for certain hints found in the Bible. The writer 
of the article "Aryan" in the Enc. Bri evidently thinks the 
Aryans went into India long after 2000 B. C, for in vol. 
2, p. 712, he says, "At the. period of their earliest literature, 
which may be assigned roughly to about 1000 B. C, they 
were still settled in the valley of the Indus and at this time 
the separation had not long taken place." By this he means, 
that they left the plateau of Iran not long before 1000 B. C. 
Rawlinson, p. 107, says, "Thus according to the highest liv- 
ing authority (Prof. Max Muller), the commencement of 
Vedic literature, and so of Indian civilization, need not be 
placed farther back than the beginning of the 12th century 
B. C." and on p. 148, the author says, "The best Aryan 
scholars place the dawn of Iranic civilization about 1500 and 
of Indie about 1200 B. C. But the Indo- Aryans left the 
old home before those going west, so says Ridpath. 

If, therefore, the Indo-European left the old centre about 
2000 B. C. the first swarm going east, then all the Aryans, 
who ever went into Europe went there after 2000 B. G, and 
I might drop the whole subject by saying that nothing in the 
entire history of the Aryans contradicts the Ussher date of 
2348 B. C. for the Flood, the dispersion of mankind coming 
later. But I will add a few additional facts as to Europe. 



130 N A AM AH AND NIMROD 

Meyers, p. 77, says, "The real history of Greece does not 
begin before the 8th century B. C." Ridpath, pages 581- 
582, vol. 2, says as late as 500 B. C. thd European Aryans 
were in their infancy, and while that is true, you caw find ex- 
aggerated statements about the age of ancient Grecian art, 
"back to 4000 B. C." But like all such statements, they are 
absolutely untrue, fabrications of that coterie of liars who have 
written so much of that kind of chaff. When they drop non- 
sense and begin to talk real Grecian history, they begin at 600 
to 800 B. C. We have no certain European Aryan date back 
of 1 000 B. C, although I have no doubt but that they went 
into Europe several centuries before that. After leaving their 
original home, the European branch of the Aryans separated, 
probably east of the Black Sea, part going north into Russia 
and Germany and on west and south. The other branch went 
around the Black Sea to the south, across Asia Minor and 
over into Greece and Italy. Later the upper branch met the 
southern swarm in the Alps and in Italy. These German and 
Roman Aryans found nobody ahead of them except the before- 
mentioned Hiamites, such as the Iberians, Basques, Etruscans, 
Pelasgians, Ligurians, Cretans, Mediterraneans, all of south- 
ern and western Europe, and the Picts and such like peoples 
of the British Isles, together with the Finns and the Lapps 
of northeast Europe. We know nothing of the Teutonic 
races, the Slavs, etc., until 400 B. C. E. B. Tylor's Anthro- 
pology, p. 158, says, "The Aryans became prominent within 
1,000 years before the Christian era." The Enc. BrL, vol. 14, 
p. 628, says, "The oldest extant Greek inscription appears 
to date from the middle of the 7th century B. C." Ridpath, 
vol, 2, p. 581, says that as late as 500 B. C. the Aryans in 
Europe were only tribes — no nation of them yet. 

These facts show that Europe was settled by the Aryans 



OUR REMARKABLE FOREFATHERS 131 

long after the Bible date for the Deluge, and it gives an 
abundance of time for the Hamites to keep ahead of the 
Aryans going westward, northward and southward in Europe. 

One word more as to the most ancient date for the Mongols 
of eastern Asia. I think I can safely say that excepting the 
Dravidians, China is the oldest race in East Asia, and her peo- 
ple, as I have shown, were the first Mongols to leave the vicinity 
of the Caspian. The English author Anstey, p. 1 03, says the 
trustworthy history of China begins less than 800 B. C. The 
Enc. Bri. t p. 751, vol. 2, says, "China's authentic history does 
not go back much beyond 1000 B. C. It is generally admit- 
ted there was some connection between the ancient civilizations 
of China and Babylon. It is clear that the Chinese came 
from the west." So the Chinese had nearly, if not quite, 
1 ,000 years to develop after leaving Chaldea or Elam, ante- 
rior to reaching their country before history knows of them. 

I shall close this chapter with the following quotation from 
p. 750, vol. 2, Enc. BrL, "The antiquity of Asiatic history 
is often exaggerated. With the exception of Babylon and 
Assyria, we can hardly even conjecture what was the condition 
of Asia much before 1000 B. C." 

Therefore, all history points back to the Caspian-Mesopo- 
tamia region at a date just back of 2000 B.C. as the beginning 
of the present races, and the Bible Ussher date is corroborated. 

I have certainly furnished proof upon proof that the present 
Noachic races of mankind had their beginning since the date 
set in Genesis for the birth of the new race, and both the 
critic and the Bible student ought to be satisfied. 

But my attention is called to another difficulty. Is not the 
time given in Genesis from the Flood to Abraham's day alto- 
gether too short for the proper growth of the nations and 
peoples of that day? 



CHAPTER XVII. 

ARE WE CRAMPED FOR TIMEP 

There is a class of ultra-evolutionists who are just as dis- 
satisfied, if we say the Noahic dispersion of mankind occurred 
10,000 or even 25,000 or 50,000 years ago, as if we say 
4264 years ago, that is 2348 B. C, the Bible Ussher date 
for the Flood. These fellows say that man, and all else 
in life, including civilization, language and religion, have 
come about by a slow development from the brute creation. 
If you want to be scientific, in the sense in which these men 
use that term, you must give to man hundreds of thousands, 
yea, millions of years in which to develop, since our first 
parents reached that stage where they could be called human. 
These men do not base their beliefs on either history or facts 
or even common sense, but alone upon unsupported theory. 
We cannot expect to please that class of men, unless we 
throw away all we know about the origin of the present races 
and accept their unsupported hypotheses. 

I heard a Bible lecturer say that man has been on the 
earth 10,000 years. Why did he say 10,000? Simply 
because he wanted to be scientific and Biblical at the same 
time, and yet 10,000 is neither. No data taken from the 
Bible can place the first man on earth much beyond nor 
much less than 6,000 years ago. If I say 10,000, I dis- 
card the Bible absolutely, and make myself as obnoxious to 
the evolutionists as when I say 6,000. A Bible student 
compromises himself when he seeks to curry favor with this 
extreme class of evolutionists, who without exception, dis- 
regard and reject the Bible, and reject it just as quickly if 
you stretch the 6,000 Bible chronology into either 10,000 or 
100,000. 






ARE WE CRAMPED FOR TIME? 133 

But, as I state in chapter I, there is a class of conscientious 
Bible students who are not satisfied that 427 years, from 
the Flood to the call of Abraham, is sufficient time for such 
peoples as the Babylonians, Egyptians and Aryans to reach 
the proportions, we know they had grown into, by that time, 
1921 B. C. This is why these, otherwise most excellent 
Bible students, resort to the Septuagint or Josephus' chronol- 
ogy, which gives more years. These good men believe that 
the religious systems of those lands were too highly developed 
for soi short a time, and their populations too great. 

As to the rapid growth of a religious system, I refer them 
to a modern example, the Mormons, founded in 1 830, and 
now fully developed, with adherents numbering half a million 
— all in less than a century, while Babylon is given over four 
centuries to grow a system that probably never had that many 
adherents. Then, too, I am certain the Sumerian religion 
was an old one, re-established after the Flood. 

As to these populations, brethren, how much time must 
you have? How many people were in Egypt in 1900 B. 
C. ? There is not a scintilla of proof that Egypt had more 
than a few thousands of people prior to 1900 B. C. I know 
they had builded great pyramids, likely about that time, 
but we have no idea how they did it nor how many men were 
required. I shall show that they then may have had, count- 
ing only 448 years from the Deluge, a thousand times as 
many men in Egypt as could get near enough to a pyramid 
to be of any aid. 

How many inhabitants had ancient Babylon when Ham- 
murabi, 1900 B. C, first united the tribes ( called City 
States) into a nation? The accounts of the wars they 
then carried on never read like they had more than a few 
hundred soldiers. They were only raids, like our early Indian 



134 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

tribes carried on, and like that in which Hammurabi him- 
self met Abraham when Lot was rescued. There was 
not a real nation on the globe back of 1900 B. C. In popu- 
lation, there is no indication that the whole of Mesopotamia, 
back of Abraham's time, ever came anywhere near the 
population of the single state of Ohio in the year 1916. 

How long since Ohio was almost an uninhabited wilderness ? 
One hundred years ago! In 1900 B. C, Babylon had had 
400 years in which to reach her petty greatness. Because 
we find a canal system in Babylon then is no proof that 
thousands of years had preceded that date. Even now in 
Ohio one can see extensive canals that have flourished and 
fallen into decay,, all within a hundred years! Let me give 
you an example of how quickly a civilization may spring up. 
I have in mind a land that, 200 years ago, was a wilderness, 
with a little fringe of civilization along one extreme eastern 
coast. Now that land has more than one hundred 
million people. If, today, a poisonous gas sliouM 
choke to death, suddenly, every human in that land to which 
I allude, and a thousand years hence, when it be totally forgot- 
ten, explorers should find its great cities, railroads, canals, 
libraries, churches, sky scrapers, and other wonders of man's 
creation, how much time would the evolutionists and exaggera- 
tors of that day have to allow for the gradual growth of such a 
mighty civilization? Five hundred years? One thousand 
years? I think I hear an united chorus of them say fifty 
thousand years. But the truth is, that less than 100 years 
has seen nearly all this greatness come about, in the United 
States of America, for you have guessed that the country to 
which I refer is our own glorious land! 

How long, then, must we give the ' meagre little tribal 



ARE WE CRAMPED FOR TIME? 135 

civilization of ancient Babylon to have it attain what it was 
in Hammurabi's time? Bah! 

But I hear some one reply that the United States and the 
State of Ohio drew immigrants from other lands, which 
Babylon could not do, for the first centuries. That's true, 
but how long by geometrical progression does it take for a 
family of eight persons to grow into the few thousands we must 
account for in Babylon, Egypt, Iran, and such like places, 
just back of 2000 B. C? In a new center, population 
doubles itself every few years, by leaps and bounds, like the 
problems given in the arithmetics for solution under geometrical 
progression : 

A man sold a horse at the rate of one cent for the first 
nail in its shoes, twjo cents for the second, four cents for the 
third nail, etc. for the 26 nails in the shoes. Did that man 
give away his horse? It brought him $671,088.63 

A boy agreed to work, and take as wages, one grain of corn 
for the first week, the number of grains to be doubled eveiy 
week for one year. Did the boy work for nothing? Guess 
not! It took all the corn in the township to pay him! 

In new communities, population grows just that way. It 
doubles every 25 years and has been known to double, for 
some periods, every 1 5 years, so says George Rawlinson's 
Ancient Egypt, pp. 1 35 and 1 36. Dodd, a noted 
author, says there may have been descended from Adam and 
Eve, at the end of 1 28 years, 42 1 , 1 64 persons. Clinton, 
the great chronologist, says, "250 years after the Flood the 
population of the earth would amount to many millions." A 
man has been known to have 400 direct descendants while he 
yet lived. During another life-time they might have grown 
to 1 60,000 at the same rate, and in the third life-time to 



136 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

64,000,000 (see Jenk's Comprehensive Commentary, vol. I, 
p. 257.) 

Malthus, the greatest authority that ever lived, on how 
fast populations may increase, on p. 3 of his The Principle 
of Population, says: "In the back settlements where the 
sole employment is agriculture, and vicious and unwholesome 
occupations are little known, the population has been found to 
double itself in fifteen years. Even this extraordinary rate of 
increase is probably short of the utmost power of population." 
Then he says: "According to Euler, calculated on a mortality 
of 1 in 3, if the births be to the deaths in the proportion of 3 
to 1 , the period of doubling will be less than 1 3 years, and 
this proportion is not only a possible supposition, but has ac- 
tually occurred for short periods in more countries than one. 
Sir William Petty supposes a doubling possible in so short a 
time as 10 years." 

If Malthus had based his calculations upon the extra- 
ordinary conditions indicated in the 9th, 1 0th and 1 1 th chap- 
ters of Genesis, when men were living to be hundreds of years 
of age, and when God was aiding in preserving a fast multiply- 
ing population, he would have given 8 or even less as the 
period of doubling population. I shall now base some cal- 
culations with Malthus as my authority, and if the critics do 
not like my figures, let them abuse Malthus who is a better 
authority on this question than all the critics who ever lived 
combined. It must not be forgotten that God had blessed 
Noah's family and admonished them to "Multiply and replen- 
ish the earth," and consequently the birth rate, death rate and 
length of life He supervised and directed, and it was God 
who aided in speedily overspreading the earth. Consider- 
ing these facts, I have reason to believe that for the first 



ARE WE CRAMPED FOR TIME? 137 

centuries population may have doubled every ten years, un- 
doubtedly every fifteen years. 

The Bible, (Gen. 10:25) says that in the days of Peleg 
the "earth was divided" that is, the earth was parcelled out 
among the sons of Noah. Suppose this occurred in Peleg's 
30th year, which would be 22 1 7 B. C. By established 
rules of population, there may have been, at that time, 
120,000 people coming directly from Noah's family of eight 
persons, the descendants of Shem, Ham and Japheth each hav- 
ing about 40,000. Thus we see that Ham could take 20,000 
with him, drop off 5,000 on the Mediterranean coast, and ar- 
rive in Egypt as early as 22 1 7 B. C. with 1 5,000 people. Re- 
member, I am in accord with the Bible (Ps. 105:23, 27; 
106:22) in saying Ham migrated to Egypt. That valley 
is also referred to in the Bible under the name Mizraim, 
Ham's son. The native name of Egypt "Khemi" means 
"Land of Ham." 

When Ham went to Egypt he would leave Cush in Shinar 
with 20,000 people or more, and in another twenty-five years 
these Cushite Sumerians would multiply into 1 00,000 people, 
not counting the other thousands that may by that time be 
coming in from the children of Shem and Japheth. By this 
calculation, there could have been millions of people there in 
the year 2000 B. C, nearly one hundred years before Ham- 
murabi's reign. But we have no reason from history to 
think there were one-tenth that number. If the population 
doubled only every 20 years, which is nothing uncommon, 
there could have come from Noah's family plenty of people 
to have given Babylonia all the population that history indi- 
cates were there in Hammurabi's time. Exactly the same 
is true as to Egypt. Her first immigrants, going there in 
2200 B. C. or earlier, would grow into all she is shown to 



138 N A AM AH AND NIMROD 

have had when history opens up that country to us. Then 
too, after the first hundred years, she began drawing immigrants 
from Arabia, and especially from the children of Shem. 

We must remember that the 1 Oth and 1 1 th chapters of 
Genesis tell us the names of only those children and descend- 
ants of Shem, Hami and Japheth who became heads of im- 
portant tribes or nations, and scores of others are never men- 
tioned. The less important may have coalesced with the 
larger clans and thus lost their identity. Arphaxad, born 
two years after the Flood, may not even have been the oldest 
child of Shem. 

Now, if in the third year after the Deluge, each son of 
Noah was the father of three children, the population would 
be more than doubled. In another five years the population 
could be 30, and in twelve or thirteen more years it could easily 
reach 60; for before this time Noah may have had grand- 
children. We must not forget that Jehovah was concerned 
(Gen. 9:7) in speedily populating the earth. Neither 
should we fail to notice that there is a supervision 
over population always, in all ages, past and present, that 
the wisest scientist has never been able to explain away. 
Ask some evolutionist to explain the peculiar fact of the al- 
most equal male and female births in all lands, and hear him 
admit his inability to account for it. The latest theory is 
that human sex, like color, etc., in birds, animals and flowers, 
is governed by Mendel's law. Possibly so, but pray tell me 
who made such a wonderful law? Even this law is over- 
stepped if one sex increases faster than the other to make up 
for a shortage when war, etc., creates a deficiency. Enc. BrL, 
vol. 9, p. 316, says, "It is said that in human societies the 
number of males born increases after wars * * * *" 

I am now ready to produce tables of population for the 



ARE WE CRAMPED FOR TIME? 139 

first 200 or 300 years following the Flood, based on the evi- 
dence furnished by Malthus. 

I do not want to be understood as saying that these several 
peoples increased in population exactly as I give in my tables. 
I have no doubt but that they doubled in number in a shorter 
period than ten years at first, when people lived to be very 
old, and at other times they may have increased more slowly 
than the tables indicate. I merely demonstrate that it was more 
than possible for Egypt, Shinar and Iran to get the meager 
populations we think they had the first 350 years after the 
Deluge. 

2348 B. C, Noah's family . . 8 2340 B. C, population 30 

2345 B. C, population 16 2327 B. C, population ..60 

Then Japheth's clan of about 20, emigrate toward Iran 
and Ham's clan retire to Naamah's old home in Shinar, also 
numbering about 20 persons. The following shows the 
possible population increase of Ham's family in Shinar: 

2327 B. C, population 20 2267 B. C, population 1,280 

...... 2,500 

5,000 

10,000 

20,000 

40,000 



2317 
2307 
2297 
2287 
2277 



40 


2257 


80 


2247 


160 


2237 


320 


2227 


640 


2217 



Now the decree is promulgated which allots Africa to Ham, 
but the Cushites, under Nimrod, revolt and half the clan 
remain in Shinar, while Ham, on his way to Egypt drops off 
say 5,000 in Canaan and arrives in the Nile valley with 
15,000. 

2217 B. C, population .... 15,000 2177 B. C, population ....240,000 

2207 " " .... 30,000 2167 " " ....480,000 

2197 " M ....60,000 2150 " " ..500,000 

2187 " " ....120,000 



4 










< 




INDIA #£?§§ 












t 






I 










a 






S 










v 






5 






■d 


3 








1 






o 

•p 

s 

eS 






Uninhabited 






1 


< 




.s: 


• 








"V) 




a 


5 










S 
£ 


N 


3 


•5 










ARE WE CRAMPED FOR TIME? 141 

Here we have Ham's race in Egypt in the year 2150 B. 
C. with 500,000 people, sufficient to begin the construction 
of the pyramids. But it is highly probable they were not 
built until 200 years later, when the population may have been 
many, many millions. But suppose their construction began 
100 years after 2150 B. C. and the population doubled only 
every twenty years: 

2150 B. C, population 500,000 2090 B. C, population 4,000,000 
2130 " " 1,000,000 2070 " " 8,000,000 

2110 " * 2,000,000 2050 " " 16,000,000 

If we estimate a doubling every 20 years the entire time 
after reaching Egypt, it is sufficient, for Egypt may never have 
had 16,000,000 population. She only has 1 1 ,000,000 now. 

If, when Ham's clan departed from Asia, he left the 
Cushites in Shinar with 20,000 people under Nimrod, let us 
see their growth in population until they were scattered at 
the time of the Babel incident (Gen. 1 1 :8), say about 2200 
B. C. 

2217 B. C, population 20,000 

2207 " " 40,000 2200 B. C, population 60,000 

So we find that there were many thousands of these Cushites 
when God drove them out. Probably their number was aug- 
mented by thousands of Japhethites and Semites before this. 
This mixed multitude may have numbered 1 00,000. 
Immediately after the Cushites leave Shinar we find Sargon I, 
a Semite, the dictator. O, how nicely all this harmonizes 
with the Bible and with archaeology! 

A similar table for Japheth's clan will show, even at a much 
slower increase, that they may have developed into millions 
long before they, inf 2000 B. C, swarmed out from Iran. 

As I demonstrated above, Japheth may have reached Iran 



142 



NAAMAH AND NIMROD 



with 20 people in 2327 B. C. Suppose they double each 
ten years for a short while, then every 20 years: 



2327 B. 


c, 


population 


20 


2177 B. C, 


population 


16,000 


2317 


* 


" 


40 


2157 " 


" 


32,000 


2307 


* 


*■ 


80 


2137 M 


TO 


64,000 


2297 


* 


•* 


160 


2117 " 


" 


125,000 


2287 


* 


" 


320 


20P7 " 


" 


250,000 


2277 


* 


** 


600 


2077 ?V 


" 


500,000 


2257 


* 


•i 


1,000 


2057 " 


'* 


1,000,000 


2237 


* 


** 


2,000 


2037 " 


».» 


2,000,000 


2217 


* 


•• 


4,000 


2017 " 


•F 


4,000,000 


2197 


j 




8,000 


2000 " 


** 


7,000,000 



This gives these Aryans over seven million people even at a 
much less rapid growth than Malthus' laws would permit us to 
assume. 

The above tables for all these peoples end 1 00 years before 
Hammurabi became king and 75 years before Abraham goes 
into Canaan. 

Therefore I am convinced that all this clamor we hear as- 
serting that there were too few years, if we accept the account 
in Genesis, is but another invention of Satan to discredit God's 
Word! 

But I especially want to call attention to the story of the 
Japhethites, in their home on the highlands of Iran. Their 
very numbers absolutely preclude the idea that they were 
settled there many years back of 2000 B. G, or that land 
could not have held them. Think of the absurdity of a few 
hundred or a few thousand Aryans remaining in Iran a million 
years or even a thousand years, and never increasing sufficiently 
to force themselves out! The man capable of believing that 
ought to have his head examined. 

If, on the calculation that population, the first 160 years 
after the Deluge, doubled only every 1 5 years, and if Japheth 
at that time went to Iran with his third of the population, he 



ARE WE CRAMPED FOR TIME? 143 

would have 5,000 people in the year 2188, and in a hundred 
and eighty-eight years more, when history says his race began 
tq leave Iran, he could have had sixty-five millions of people. 
I do not believe he had one-tenth that number. History shows 
that the Aryans at that time were a few agricultural people 
with homes, cattle, plows, sickles, sons, daughters and very 
nearly a monetheistic religion. How could they have been 
there fifty thousand years and have remained a meagre hand- 
ful? It is preposterous! 

It even seems that Ussher's chronology gives us too much 
time for the Aryans, and yet some Bible students are crying: 
"Give us more time!" What do they want with more time? 
They would have these Aryans increasing into millions, cooped 
up on a plateau, tramping all over each other, waiting until 
the year 2000 B. C. would arrive, so they could expand into 
India and Europe. The very fact that they were but few 
at that period, proves conclusively that they had been there 
but a few hundred years, at the very most. Better stick to the 
Bible, brethren, or you will find yourselves in the mire as 
deep as some of these fool evolutionists. 

I have referred to the well known fact that before these 
Aryans separated from their first home, they had a completed 
and perfectly inflected language, and evolutionists point to 
that as an evidence that this people had a long prior existence. 
They say it would take long ages for such a language to per- 
fect itself. That is a peculiar circumstance, I admit, but 
think how ridiculous it is even to suppose that these Aryans 
would remain in one center for ages "to complete their gram- 
mar" and obtain a "well inflected language" before starting 
out. The birth rate during these ages must have been the 
lowest on record, or they must have been dying off by some 
terrible scourge continuously, or they would have outgrown 



144 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

their boundaries. In fact, their small vocabulary, of only 
purely domestic words, shows that their stay in the central 
hjome was a very short space of time. But may not their 
language have come from an antediluvian mother tongue? I 
am convinced it did. 

I have, in the preceding chapters, taken up much space prov- 
ing that the history of no people on earth reaches back of 
the time of Noah's Flood, at the date given by Ussher, 2348 
B. C, and I am ready to declare that there is no necessity for 
a Bible student to be disturbed for fear ancient history may 
overthrow the plain statements of the Bible, that the second 
dispersion of mankind occurred just when and where the 
Bible states. 

But I am now confronted by another variety of Bible critic 
who says that I may be correct in saying that profane history 
cannot certainly trace civilized man back of the time of the 
Deluge, but how about prehistoric man? His relics are found 
among the glacial drifts and his bones in those ancient caves 
of France and England, along with the bones of animals 
long extinct. Prehistoric man was certainly here, say these 
critics, more than 6,000 years ago, and if so, those who 
accept Genesis must admit that the time there given, as the 
advent of man, is incorrect. If so, Genesis and with it the 
entire Bible is discredited. But what is the truth as to pre- 
historic man? The next chapter will answer. 



CHAPTER XVIII. 

THE RELICS OF PREHISTORIC MAN. 

By prehistoric we mean the remains of man, or the im- 
plements he used, found in such localities as lead us to believe 
they were deposited there longer ago than the date to which 
written history reaches. 

In preceding chapters it is shown that history (other than 
Bible history) reaches but a few hundred years back of the 
Christian era except in the case of Egypt and western Asia 
and even there when we go back of 1000 to 1500 B. C. 
it is pretty much guess work, and is worse than guess work 
back of 2000 B. C, and that therefore from authentic profane 
history it cannot be proven that man was living on the earth 
even so long ago as the dates given in Genesis. 

But there are many things that show us conclusively that 
prehistoric man lived in various parts of the earth at the time 
of Egyptian and Babylonian civilization and for many years 
prior to that time, for we find his bones or his implements in 
the peat bogs, caves and glacial drift of Europe, Asia and 
possibly America sometimes deeply buried under many feet 
of soil, stalagamite or volcanic tufa, along with the bones of 
ancient and in many cases, long since extinct animals such as 
the cave bear and the mammoth. Let me first describe the 
locations, conditions and situations under which these relics of 
prehistoric man are found before I bring up the question of 
how old such bones or implements are: 

In Switzerland, and to some extent elsewhere, are found 
wooden piles sticking out of the mud in the bottoms of lakes on 
wSiich houses were built, many years ago, sometimes amounting 
to good sized villages. In the mud into which these piles 



146 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

were driven are found ancient implements of stone and bronze 
and the bones of animals that have not lived in recent times 
in those sections of country. While these lake dwellers 
were, in some cases, quite ancient, they are not looked upon 
as so remote as any of the other prehistoric men I shall men- 
tion, for these lake dwellers had the modern domestic animals, 
but such animals as the reindeer or the extinct animals, such 
as the mammoth or cave bear, are never found. 

At certain places on the shores of the Danish Islands and 
elsewhere appear immense heaps, in some places nearly 1 ,000 
feet long, 200 feet wide and several feet high, of the shells of 
oysters and other mollusks together with the bones of birds 
and animals. These refuse heaps are the accumulations of 
centuries, possibly, of the rude people who lived by fishing and 
hunting. Scattered through these heaps are implements of 
stone, bone and horn but none of bronze or iron. Some of 
these refuse heaps are several miles from the present shore 
line, showing that land levels have much changed since they 
were deposited. Many centuries have elapsed since these 
accumulations were first begun. These refuse heaps were 
begun at a more remote date than the lake dwellings for, 
while the shells are all of living species, they are! of an older 
type, and bones of the domestic ox, horse and sheep are not 
found. The bones of the dog belong to a smaller and older 
race than those found among the lake dwellings. 

In Denmark and other regions are deposits of peat varying 
in depth from 10 to 30 feet, occupying depressions or basins. 
That these deposits have been many years forming is shown 
chiefly by the kinds of tree remains found imbedded at varying 
depths in the peat. Near the bottom occur logs of the Scotch 
fir which does not grow in Denmark now. At a higher level 
are found trunks of oak trees which have not grown to any 



RELICS OF PREHISTORIC MAN 147 

extent in Denmark since historic times, the prevailing timber 
there since the historic period (100 B. C. in Denmark) being 
beech. In the peat along with the Scotch fir are found 
only stone implements. The oak section or layer contains 
stone and bronze and near the top are found implements of 
iron. The bottom, or! Scotch fir layer, of these peat bogs is 
as old if not older than the beginnings of the kitchen mid- 
dens or refuse heaps mentioned above, but not so old as the 
glacial men. This peat often occupies glacial basins. 

In France, England, Belgium and elsewhere are found 
caves that have been visited by animals and man from remote 
ages. On the floor of some of the caves is an accumulation 
of debris many feet thick. Between different layers of mud, 
broken rock, etc., there often intervene layers of lime rock 
from an inch or less to several inches or a foot or more in 
thickness. In carefully removing these successive layers there 
are found first the remains of recent animals and man and old- 
er as we go deeper. In some of these caves, near the bottom 
are found man's; bones or his implements imbedded with the 
bones of ancient or extinct animals. There are two classes 
of these caves: those that contain modern animals and the 
smoother implements of stone, and those that contain along 
with relics of man the bones of the mammoth and other extinct 
animals. The first mentioned class of caves, in age, repre- 
sent, possibly, the age of the peat bogs, the kitchen middens 
and the lake dwellers, but those which contain bones of the 
mammoth are still older. 

It is well known, and admitted, even by those who make 
no pretentions to scientific knowledge, that in recent geologic 
times a great ice sheet formed over many parts of the earth 
more especially over the northern portions of Europe and 
America. In Greenland today is an area of ice 800 miles 



148 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

square and several hundred feet high, moving in almost every 
direction toward the sea, in great glaciers. If this immense 
field of ice should suddenly melt, it would cause indescribable 
floods, destroying all animal life there and would carry from 
the interior vast amounts of soil and rock which would be 
deposited in the lower lands to the depth, possibly, of hundreds 
of feet. This is exactly What took place in the Champlain, 
or melting time, of the ice age, only on a grander and larger 
scale, almost beyond the imagination. We have no record 
any where that man lived before or during the formation of 
these immense fields of ice. But at the very culmination, the 
melting period, man lived, for there is no longer any doubt 
but that his implements, if not his bones, are found imbedded 
under many feet of supposedly undisturbed gravel deposited 
by the torrents occasioned by the melting ice. A few illus- 
trations are all space will permit me to give: 

About the year 1 840 a French investigator discovered stone 
implements in some of the gravel terraces along the Somme 
River at Abbeville, France. The place was afterwards 
visited by the noted geologist Sir Charles Lyell and the truth 
of the finds verified. In connection with the implements were 
found the bones of the mammoth. Since then in Europe and 
in America, possibly, have been found the relics of man in 
supposedly undisturbed glacial gravel beds. So it is no longer 
disputed that man lived in the closing epoch of the ice age. 
These are the most ancient remains of man yet found on the 
earth unless it be those in some of the caves mentioned above, 
which may be as old, but not older. These ancient remains 
of man are sometimes said to be relics of pre- Adamites, but 
there has never been any thing discovered that need cause 
one to believe there were men on this earth at any time 
before Adam and Eve lived in Eden. 



RELICS OF PREHISTORIC MAN 149 

West of the Rocky mountains in Idaho, Oregon and Cali- 
fornia are immense beds of lava, often 1 00 feet or more deep. 
This lava seems to have flowed from earth crevices or seams, 
like immense rivers, into the depressions and over the plains. 
Beneath this lava are beds of glacial gravel in which, in 
California, the relics of man are said to have been found by 
miners tunneling for gold. The tree remains found in this 
gravel are different from the trees native there now. The 
animal remains also found deep under this volcanic ash are 
that of the mastodon and other ancient or extinct animals. 
These remains of man may be as old as any yet found but 
there is nothing to show that they are older than similar finds 
in glacial wash elsewhere, and they may be found, when 
properly investigated, not even as old as the Christian era, 
for there is very much doubt as to the credibility of these finds. 

How long has it been since these Lake Dwellers, the 
Kitchen Midden men, the Peat Bog men, the Cave men, and 
especially the Glacial men were living in the various localities 
named above? 

There is a class of would-be scientists who claim that the 
time since these prehistoric men first lived is enormously long. 
Some say a million years. Myers, on p. 2, says the Old Stone 
age of man was measured, not by thousands but by millions 
of years. M. Rutot (191 1 ) says the relics of man are 
found dating back 139,000 years (Duckworth, p. 103). 
The estimates run all the way from millions to less than seven 
thousand years. Osborn places the first real man 500,000 
years ago; James Geikie, 200,000; Croll, 980,000; Sturge, 
700,000; Townsend, 6,000; Le Conte, p. 416, says, 'The 
time which elapsed since man first appeared is still doubtful. 
Some estimate it at more than 100,000 years and some say 
10,000." Myers, p. 4, says, "We do not attempt to reckon 



150 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

the duration of Paleolithic man by centuries or millenniums 
even, but by geologic epochs." Very many scientists now 
place the advent of man, independent of the Bible, at less 
than 1 0,000 years. 

Some geological evolutionists sneer when Genesis is mention- 
ed, because "Genesis and science do not agree." How could 
Genesis agree with such discordant and exaggerated estimates? 
Think of scientists, who vary so greatly among themselves, 
asking that Genesis agree with them! How long would any 
of us place any dependence in the Bible if its books disagreed 
among themselves as these "scientists" do among themselves? 
Enormously long estimates of prehistoric time, as I shall show 
elsewhere, grow out of the application of the theory of evolu- 
tion to the development of man, and not to any proofs that 
he has so long inhabited the earth. I do not know of a par- 
ticle of proof anywhere to show that man has lived here be- 
yond the period reckoned from the book of Genesis, and this 
I shall show in the next chapter. 



CHAPTER XIX. 

TRUTH ABOUT PREHISTORIC MAN. 

Those who reject the Genesis account of early man also 
reject Noah's Flood story, yet they generally admit that 
everything in history, ethnology, language and race point to 
western Asia, in or near the Euphrates valley, as the place 
where man originated. There and in Egypt, which is almost 
contiguous, where authentic history runs farthest back — would 
not those countries be the place to find the earliest evidences of 
man, prehistoric man? Especially ought we to be able to find 
prehistoric man in Egypt where the dry climate would tend 
to preserve ancient relics. But these two countries present no 
proof of prehistoric barbarians, no Paleolithic man, no Neo- 
lithic man. Why? Because they had no prehistoric period. 
The first post-diluvian man in Babylonia and Egypt was the 
civilized man and the prehistoric man of Europe, America 
and elsewhere was a later migration from these two civilized 
centers. While Neolithic man hunted wild animals in Europe 
and possibly in America, civilization reigned in Babylon and 
Egypt, and while Paleolithic man with his stone ax combatted 
the mammoth and the cave bear in Europe and barely pos- 
sibly in America, and lost his life among the glacial torrents 
of those days, the antediluvians enjoyed a good degree of 
culture in western Asia. There man lived first and later, as 
climatic conditions invited him, he spread to Europe and else- 
where and, as is always the case, in part lost his civilization. 
As profane history cannot certainly carry us much beyond 
1500 B. C, neither can it be inferred that prehistoric man 
lived much beyond that, unless an antediluvian dispersion of 
mankind be admitted in which case paleolithic time may rea- 



152 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

sonably be extended upwards of 1500 years farther back. 
We who believe in the Deluge can account for the mammoth 
and cave bear men's era, for they were antediluvians, as I 
shall show in this chapter. The fact that no prehistoric man, 
such as used the stone ax and the flints, and presented the 
barbarous facial and cranial expression, is ever found in or 
near such a primitive center as Babylonia, is a very serious 
blow to the theory that man evolved from bestial savagery, 
but it rather tends to show that the more barbarous types 
found in remote places are those who went from the first center 
and in after years degenerated. 

Those who discuss prehistoric man have divided the times 
in which he lived into Paleolithic (old stone age), Neolithic 
(new or smooth stone age), Bronze and Iron ages. I am 
sorry they ever adopted these divisions because there is neither 
sense nor reason in such divisions. It is true that the stone 
implements found in the most ancient caves and glacial drift 
are often roughly made but not always so, and those found 
in the more recent caves and lake dwellings are sometimes bet- 
ter made but not always so. (Duckworth, p. 93). Some- 
times in very ancient glacial deposits all kinds of stone im- 
plements are found together, (Duckworth, p. 125). The 
fact is, rude, barbarous men in all ages used rude stone im- 
plements. The Indians used such implements in America 
but a few years ago and the native Australian and South Af- 
rican Bushmen still use them. (Duckworth, p. 95). Caesar 
found, in trenches before Alesia, in his battle with Vercinge- 
torix, weapons of stone, bronze and iron all mingled together. 
(Dawson, p. 282). The finding of a rough stone imple- 
ment associated with the bones of a man no more proves the age 
in which he lived than would the color of his hair or the 
length of his nose. To prate about stone-using man, as if that 



TRUTH ABOUT PREHISTORIC MAN 153 

meant ancient man, is all nonsense. To date the bones of a 
man as ancient because they are found in proximity to rough 
paleoliths has led many a scientist into the greatest error. 
Skill, or lack of it, shown in the construction of a stone im- 
plement, is never a guide to its age. 

But there is a real dividing line that can and should be made 
as to these ancient men — the line is that which separates the 
men Who lived before the final Ice Age cataclysm and those 
who lived afterward, and the sort of implements they used has 
next to nothing to do in creating the two classes. You do 
not need to go to Genesis to find the account of that cataclysm 
(Noah's Flood) that destroyed these most ancient men and 
made extinct many forms of animal life, for geologists every- 
where admit it. The great geologist, Sir Charles Lyell, tells 
all about the breaking up of that period in chapter 14 and 
elsewhere in his Antiquity of Man. Dawson in his Story of 
Earth and Man, p. 303, says, "Even in America the masto- 
don, the mammoth, the fossil horse, and many other creatures, 
disappeared before the modern period, and on both continents 
the great post-glacial subsidence or Deluge may have swept 
away some of the species." Prof. Wright, of Oberlin, one of 
the greatest living scientists, on p. 25, of his Origin and An- 
tiquity of Man, uses these words. "It is in deposits connected 
with the closing catastrophe of the Glacial epoch that we chief- 
ly find the earliest relics of the human race." 

That catastrophe (I will not yet call it Noah's Flood for 
fear of offending some of our weaker brothers who cannot ac- 
cept any truth if it seems to agree with Genesis) is the natural 
dividing line between the really ancient man and the more 
modern. A far better thing would be to call the older divi- 
sion of prehistoric man the "Mammoth Age" because that 
was the age when lived that now extinct animal. This animal 



154 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

began its existence during or at the end of the Glacial sub- 
epoch, that is, it did not live before the Pleistocene epoch, and 
disappeared with the close of the Champlain, or melting time, 
(Dana, p. 321). Duckworth, p. 90, says that elephas an- 
tiquus began after the Pliocene period, and on p. 88 says this 
animal originated before the mammoth. Chamberlin & Salis- 
bury's getology, p. 496, vol. 3, says, "The mammoth was in 
America after ice left the country finally." Todd, on p. 76, 
says that the mammoth disappeared between the Paleolithic 
and Neolithic ages. In other words, the mammoth became 
extinct when Paleolithic man disappeared, at the time of the 
Deluge. Chamberlin & Salisbury clinch the matter on p. 5 1 4, 
vol. 3, by saying, "The association of man with extinct ani- 
mals is a phenomenon that may mean the extension of man's 
presence backward or the extension of these animals forward." 
Keane, p. 269, says, "No doubt the mammoth, as many hold, 
may have survived till comparatively late times in Siberia." 
This means that the mammoth disappeared recently enough to 
have met destruction in Noah's Flood. By courtesy of 
Smithsonian Institution, I reproduce a fine picture of the mam- 
moth in this chapter. 

The bones of the mammoth are never found in the mud 
under the lake dwellings, in the kitchen middens nor in the peat 
bogs which occupy glacial basins. (Lyell, p. 73.) 

The fact is, the lake dwellers lived in and back of Caesar's 
time and are mentioned by Herodotus about 500 B. C. Ed- 
ward Fountaine, p. 69, says that the lake dwellers lived as 
late as 100 B. C, and W. B. Wright, p. 292, says, "The 
famous lake dwellings of Switzerland belong in part to late 
Neolithic and in part to the bronze age." These lake 
dwellers are probably more recent than the time of the Baby- 
lonian captivity recorded in the Bible. 




THE SUSSEX, OR PILTDOWN MAN, permission Current opinion 



■-"■*'$Mg|fe < S#gP ? 




MMOTH (Elephas Primfgmius), permission Smithsonian institution- 



TRUTH ABOUT PREHISTORIC MAN 155 

The kitchen middens and the peat bogs are more ancient, 
but the mere fact that rough stone (paleolithic) implements are 
found in them proves nothing, for if peat bogs exist now in 
Australia or South Africa, the natives would be dropping 
rough stone implements into them. As to the change of tim- 
ber from Scotch fir to oak and afterward to beech or the 
change in domestic animals, these prove nothing as to time. 
Nature does some unaccountable things sometimes. I am told 
that in some parts of the Carolinas, when the native pine is cut 
away, a growth of oak takes its place, and all within a few 
years, and so it may have been from fir to oak and then to 
beech in Denmark. On this point I note that W. B. Wright, p. 
429, says that the time when these trees existed was very short, 
and no better authority could be quoted. The animal life of 
Ohio has entirely changed in the past 125 years, from wolf, 
deer and bison to sheep, horse and domestic cattle; just as 
rapid changes, no doubt, took place in the early days. 

The later of the cave men are no older than these peat 
bog men, as the animal life shows. In chapter XII, I tell of 
the Cushites going into Europe soon after the Deluge and that 
they were known as Berbers, Basques, Iberians, Picts and 
Lapps. I have also shown in chapter XV that the earliest of 
these are what are known as Neolithic races. Now I want 
you to know also that many of these lived in caves and they 
are these later cave men we are now discussing. Some of 
these Neolithic cave dwellers went under the name of the 
"Cromagnon race" because a cave of that name produced 
skeletons of that type. Wright's Origin and Antiquity of 
Man, p. 115, says that the prehistoric Neolithic man of 
France was the Cromagnon cave man. The Enc. BrL, vol. 7, 
p. 482, quotes Quatrefages as saying that the Cromagnon 
man was a Berber, and vol. 3, p. 765, says, "Connection has 



156 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

been traced between the early Libyan race and the Cromag- 
non and other early European races and, later, the Basque 
peoples, Iberians, Picts, etc." Vol. 5, p. 577, says, "These 
Neolithic cave-dwellers have been proven to be identical in 
physique with the builders of the cairns and tumuli" (dolmans, 
etc. ) , and I show elsewhere that the Cushites built these. The 
above vol., p. 578, says, "This identification of the ancient 
Neolithic cave-dwellers with the modern Basque-speaking 
peoples is corroborated." The Dordogne cave skull of France 
belongs to this Neolithic Cromagnon Cushite race as well as 
many others I might name. This is sufficient to show that this 
class of cave men are not very ancient, and enables us to 
quite definitely date them, from about 2200 to 1500 B. C, 
some even later. Thus we know the time and the race of the 
lake dwellers, the kitchen midden, the peat bog and the Neo- 
lithic cave men. 

But the Paleolithic peoples, the older cave men and the 
glacial men, belong to the mammoth epoch, that is antedilu- 
vian, and many of them perished in the Flood or floods at 
the close of the Ice Age. Prof. Wright says, p. 243, "But 
the real aborigines (of America) were the Paleolithic men 
whom we have already given reason to suppose became extinct 
through the fearful and trying climatic changes and extensive 
conflagrations and floods connected with the advance and 
close of the Glacial epoch." Those critics who quote the 
fact that the bones of the mammoth are found along with 
man, to prove the very ancient age of man, overstep themr 
selves for in doing so they also prove man to be post-glacial, for 
so was the mammoth. (Duckworth, p. 88). Every man 
whose relics are found along with the bones of the mammoth 
was a post-glacial man. 



TRUTH ABOUT PREHISTORIC MAN 157 

Deniker, p. 302, says, "It is to the period when the glacier 
began to withdraw from Europe that the ancient vestiges of 
mankind are to be attributed." On p. 309, this author says 
that there are no remains of interglacial man, and he says, 
"This statement is now admitted by all pale-ethnologists." 
Prof. Winchell says, "Man has no place until after the reign 
of ice." Tyler, p. 33, says, "It cannot be proven that man 
was in France or England before the last glacial period." On 
p. 30, this author says, "The drift gravels belong to the time 
when the ice sheet was leaving or had passed away in Europe." 

One positive proof that man did not live in Europe before 
the ice epoch is seen in that all north Europe, even Spitzbergen, 
was then sub-tropical, but prehistoric man is never found in 
those regions. He did not live there then, and if he did not 
live there he did not live anywhere. 

Another fact that makes us know that the relics of man 
found at Abbeville, France are in late Champlain times is be- 
cause the ice-cap did not cover that part of France. There- 
fore these relics of man and the mammoth could not be cover- 
ed up under glacial ice debris, until very late, for the 
floods would be too great for man's presence until quite late 
in the melting. 

Right here I want my readers to note the fact that when 
the mammoth is found under glacial gravel wash, it too is a 
post-glacial animal and may have been living in Europe as 
late as the time of Noah's Flood. Another thing to remember 
is that all caves are post-glacial. Therefore, when you find 
anything in a cave it came there after the ice sheet had gone. 
Clodd, p. 42, says, "No caves are earlier than mid- Pleisto- 
cene times." Enc. BrL, vol. 2, p. 575, says the same thing. 
The caves could not be formed while the intense freezing was 
going on, but only by running water while ice was melting in 



158 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

the Champlain sub-epoch. Indeed, this cave matter is a very 
effective argument, because many of these prehistoric caves 
were near the ice margin and could not be inhabited by man 
or animal while great torrents were rushing through them. 
Therefore, every cave man and every cave bear and mam- 
moth bone ever found in a cave came there after the melting 
period had almost passed away. This proves the cave man 
and mammoth to be not only post-glacial but almost post- 
Champlain also. I could rest my case on this almost positive 
proof that the earliest relics of man are later than both the ice 
forming and the ice melting time. 

Scharff's History of the European Fauna is quoted on p. 
88, Pop. Sci. Mon., May, 1902, as saying, "The mammoth 
does not occur in any European Pliocene deposit and could 
not therefore have originated in Europe until Pleistocene 
times." 

Now then, the time when these antediluvian cave dwellers 
and glacial men and the mammoth began to inhabit Europe 
depends altogether upon when the great ice cap had melted 
sufficiently to permit man to hunt the mammoth and other ani- 
mals of that day which were closely following up the receding 
ice. Geology shows that man appeared exactly at that time 
and the mammoth ahead of him. Prof. Wright in his Origin 
and Antiquity of Man, p. 366, says, "Paradoxical as it may 
seem, it was soon after the culmination of the Glacial Epoch 
that the conditions in central ( Asia were most favorable for the 
support of a dense population both of animals and man." 

How long since the Champlain sub-epoch ended? If we 
can answer this question we can, in a measure, answer that 
other question — whether glacial man appeared on earth as re- 
cently as Genesis indicates, about 6,000 years ago. I see no 



TRUTH ABOUT PREHISTORIC MAN 159 

reason whatever to give glacial man a more ancient existence 
to satisfy the) teachings of geology. 

Until recently it was the fashion for many geologists to 
claim that tens of thousands of years, even millions, have 
elapsed since ice covered much of North America and Europe, 
but common sense is beginning to assert itself, and now we find 
eminent geologists who put the date less than 10,000 years. 
Prof. Prestwich's Geology, p. 533, says, "I would limit the 
time of the so-called post-glacial period, or of the melting 
away of the ice-sheet, to from eight thousand to ten thousand 
years." 

Prof. Dawson makes a calculation from the rapidity of de- 
posits of the delta of the Tinnere, near Lake Geneva, before 
the Roman period as compared with the time since, and cal- 
culates that the relics of man in the glacial deposits there are 
less than 5,000 years old. But such calculations are not very 
reliable, as I shall now show. 

How do geologists or archaeologists proceed to get some 
idea of the time that has passed since the great glacial sheet 
began to melt away? They make calculations of this kind: 

The shore of Scotland near Glasgow has elevated a certain 
known amount since the Roman invasion, a known date; then 
if the rate of elevation be the same to the height where the 
relics of Paleolithic man are found, his age can be calculated. 

If iron implements introduced into Europe at about a certain 
known date are found at a certain depth in peat bogs, how 
long would it take at same rate of accumulation to make the 
growth reaching down to implements of ancient man at the bot- 
tom? 

If a layer of stalagmite in an ancient cave has formed an 
inch thick since a certain known date, how long did it take to 



160 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

form another deeper layer a foot thick overlying the remains of 
the mammoth together with the relics of man? 

If the delta of a certain river is known to have begun to form 
at end of the glacial period, about the time the mammoth man 
appeared, and is now accumulating about so many feet a cen- 
tury, how long to accumulate the entire delta? 

Since Niagara falls is known to have cut back its gorge 
since the glacial period and now cuts back a certain rate year- 
ly, how long since the gorge began? This is supposed to give 
the approximate date of the recedence of the ice cap and the 
subsequent appearance of man. 

But such calculations are unreliable. I might give hun- 
dreds of instances of how one coast line is gradually raised 
through a long series of years while a mountain may be thrown 
up in a day, and yet sufficient data can be secured to prove 
that but a few thousand years have elapsed since glacial ice 
left Europe and North America. 

In modern times a hut near Stockholm has* been carried by 
a land subsidence sixty ft. under water and marine strata many 
feet thick accumulated over it; more recently the land has 
risen again, carrying the hut to almost its original place. If 
we did not know that the time occupied in both subsidence and 
elevation was comparatively short, we might guess 100,000 
years or a million as the time required. This is an excellent 
example of "scientific" guesses at the age of man. 

The Mississippi river carried sixty times as much water 
about the time of the glacial torrents as it carries now, so the 
geologists tell us. Would it not therefore carry sixty times 
as much delta formation then as now? Mark Twain makes 
ridiculous these calculations by showing from one geologist's 
statements, about the Mississippi getting so many feet shorter 
each year on account of delta accumulations, that, counting 



TRUTH ABOUT PREHISTORIC MAN 161 

back to glacial times, this river must have stuck out over the 
Gulf of Mexico to the Panama canal. 

Prof. Dawson says a peat bed at Abbeville, France, has 
grown at the rate of one and one-half inches in the last cen- 
tury, but the tree growths, imbedded in its bottom layer, prove 
that it at first grew at the rate of three feet per century. The 
present rate of growth would require 20,000 years for its 
total age but the growth of three feet per century would re- 
quire but 4,000 years. Which is correct? Who can tell? 

Reliable investigators have recently declared that Niagara 
falls has cut its present channel in much less time than was 
formerly thought. Prof. Wright, in his Ice Age in North 
America, on p. 707, says, "Sir Charles Lyell's estimate of 
35,000 years as the age of Niagara gorge is greatly reduced. 
Ten thousand years is now regarded as a liberal allowance 
for the age of that gorge." The new geology of Chamberlin 
& Salisbury, on p. 418, vol. 3, says, "If the length of Niagara 
gorge be divided by the average rate of retreat, since the suc- 
cessive positions of the falls were located by accurate surveys, 
the quotient is 7,000 years." As man did not appear until after 
ice had in great part disappeared, this wculd not even allow 
6,000 years since man's advent. 

Prof. Hoist, a member of the Swedish Geological Survey, 
one of the best authorities in the world on the time that has 
elapsed since the Ice Age, in a recent lecture, reported in the 
Records of the Past for March, 1914, says, "In a work print- 
ed three years ago I gave a division, based on geological pro- 
files, of the time which has expired since the Ice Age. At 
that; time I came to the conclusion that the whole post-glacial 
space of time covered was about 7,000 years." Then he goes 
on to state how until recently it was supposed to be 50,000 
years. Then he says it was another thousand years before 



162 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

Paleolithic man lived there and two thousand more (about 
2000 B. C.) before Neolithic man reached Sweden. This is 
almost exactly the date I give in chapter XIV for the arrival of 
the Lapps and Finns. 

I suspect conclusions based on the recedence of Niagara 
falls are the most reliable and the most convincing of all the 
calculations of this kind ever made, and they come near prov- 
ing that the ice cap left northern New York, northern Ohio 
and southern Canada possibly somewhat less than 6,000 or 
7,000 years ago. Prof. G. F. Wright of Oberlin, O., has 
compiled a mass of information on this feature of the falls in 
his excellent book, The Ice Age in North America. He 
quotes the eminent French glacialist Desor as saying that one 
foot in 1 00 years was likely the rate of recedence. This would 
make it 3,500,000 years since the ice cap melted away suffi- 
ciently that Niagara River could begin to cut a channel. Sir 
Charles Lyell estimated the recedence at one foot a year, or a 
total of 35,000 years. Mr. Blackwell, another investigator, 
said three feet a year, or about 11,700 years. These esti- 
mates were all before any measurements and surveys were 
made from time to time to establish the actual recedence. In 
1 842 a survey was made and a mark established. Now it 
is known just how fast the falls are creeping back, and these 
actual measurements show that it is more than five feet a year. 
This reduces the time to less than 7,000 years. But please 
do not forget that for the first hundreds of years, when the 
mountains of ice were yet melting and great floods were rag- 
ing, the cutting away probably proceeded much faster than 
now. This might reduce the time to less than 5,000 years. 
If ice covered much of North America, just back of 5,000 
years ago, the same was likely true of north Europe. 

Morris, the evolutionist, p. 24, says, "The- streams may have 



TRUTH ABOUT PREHISTORIC MAN 163 

formerly been of greater volume, and had superior cutting 
powers!" Dawson, p. 286, says, "The erosion was enormous 
in comparison to anything we know." 

Compare the exaggerated estimate of 3,500,000 with the 
real facts ascertained by careful surveys ! Now you know how 
much dependence to put in the long string of figures that have 
been so generously handed out to us about geological time, 
man's advent on earth, the civilization of Egypt and the other 
nonsensical deductions, all based on evolution. 

Since the Ice Age, the post glacial gorge from Ft. Snelling 
to the falls of St. Anthony in Minnesota has been cut, and 
Prof. Winchell, a noted geologist, estimates that 8,000 years 
is all the time it required. Prof. Andrews says the post-glacial 
erosions on the shores of Lake Michigan have taken place in 
7,500 years or less. Prof. Prestwich expresses it as his opin- 
ion that the entire Ice Age, both the accumulation and melting, 
may not have taken more than 15,000 years. (See his 
geology). One observer of a glacier in Alaska says that it 
has melted away so fast in the past 25 years, as compared with 
a previous rate, that he has lost all faith in such calculations. 
Prof. J. W. Dawson mentions an accumulation in one cave 
of stalagmite to be one-twentieth of an inch in 200 years, 
another cave one- fourth inch in one year. The Enc. BrL, p. 
575, vol. 5, says, "In Ingleborough cavern a stalagmite, 
measured in 1839 and in 1873, is growing at the rate of 
nearly one-third inch per year." As man's most ancient 
relics have never been found beneath more than a few feet of 
stalagmite, the above rate of growth would reduce the age 
of the most ancient cave relic to less than 500 years. This 
shows the absurdity of all such calculations. 

There are many of the safest and most learned of geologists 
who place the duration of the ice-melting time of the Pleisto- 



164 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

cene epoch, at but a few thousand years. Prestwich, quoted 
above, in his geology makes this statement: "The time re- 
quired for the formation and duration of the great ice-sheets 
in Europe and America need not, after making all allowances, 
have extended beyond 15,000 to 25,000 years, instead of 
160,000 or more as has been claimed, and I would for the 
same reasons limit the time of the so-called post-glacial 
(Champlain) period, or of the melting away of the ice-sheets, 
to from 8,000 to 10,000 years or less." 

Now, man appeared according to Genesis, 1656 years be- 
fore the end of this ice-melting period, and the mammoth and 
cave bear doubtless earlier in the melting period, but in post- 
glacial times, and all of them perished at the end of this post- 
glacial period in many terrific torrents, the final of which was 
the Deluge. 

I have a number of times, in referring to prehistoric man 
in America, spoken doubtfully of it. I do not believe man 
lived in America anciently at all. Man had not reached 
this continent at the time when either Paleolithic or Neolithic 
man lived in Europe. I doubt whether a human being had 
even yet seen America until as late as or after the Christian era. 
Prof. Wright of Oberlin and a few others believe man lived 
here in the closing Champlain days, but the evidence is all 
against them. The Calaveras skull, reported to have been 
found deep under ground in California, was likely a hoax 
and is now so regarded. Even if it was really found under 
Table Mountain, the covering above it is of very fresh looking 
volcanic origin, and we do not know but that it was belched 
forth from the earth as late as 500 years ago. At any rate 
this skull is that of a modern Indian. 

The human bones found under gravel and loess at Trenton, 
N. J. are also those of an ordinary Indian and likely were 



TRUTH ABOUT PREHISTORIC MAN 165 

covered up there but a few hundred years ago. The same 
facts hold good as to the Lansing, Kansas, skeleton. It also 
is only that of an Indian and the experts who examined the 
wind-transported materials covering the skeleton had no way 
to tell their age. 

It is now well known that gravels deposited by waters 
about Champlain times and loess deposited by winds have 
often been redeposited in much later times, and so it may 
have been in case of both the Lansing and Trenton finds. 

The evolutionist can choose either horn of a dilemma: if 
these three skulls are really ancient Paleolithic, then there has 
been no evolution; if they are not ancient, then present-day 
skulls can become deeply covered under gravel, and therefore a 
skull found under gravel may not be ancient at all. 

The experts who examined the Calaveras, Lansing and 
Trenton skulls are unanimous that they are modern Indian 
skulls and they suspect that they were not found where reported 
or in case of two of them that they became covered up in 
recent times. If so, then a modern skull may be found under 
glacial wash or loess, and that makes us suspicious as to the 
age of all gravel covered relics. 

No other human remains found in America have enough 
ancient merit to be worthy of discussion. I shall close these 
remarks on "early man in America" with the following quo- 
tations: 

The March, 1916, number of The Scientific Monthly has 
an article by Dr. Clark Wissler wherein he says of the Tren- 
ton bones. "Since it is not clear that the gravels in which 
these bones were found were undisturbed by post-glacial floods, 
we must consider the case as far from proved. * * * In brief, 
it was regarded as a wind deposit of comparatively recent 
formation.*' 



166 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

Chamberlin and Salisbury's geology, p. 502, vol. 3, says 
that whether glacial man was in America is more doubtful 
than a few years ago, because it is found that the reports of 
these finds are not trustworthy. 

Brinton, p. 24, says of the Calaveras skull, "The record 
of its discovery is too unsatisfactory." 

The new and comprehensive work, just out, by Prof. Os- 
born of Princeton, Men of the Old Stone Age, has no word 
favorable to glacial man in America. 

In fact, man could not cross from Asia to America either 
in Paleolithic or early Neolithic ages because eastern Siberia 
was not habitable. Besides, glaciers shut off all entrance to 
North America until long after the time of Noah's Flood. 

Brinton, p. 21, says, "We know that Siberia was not 
peopled until late Neolithic times, and what is more, that the 
vicinity of the strait and the whole coast of Alaska were, till a 
very modern geological period, covered by enormous glaciers 
which would have prevented any communication between the 
two continents." 

On p. 29, the above author quotes H. Habenicht as saying, 
"At the time of the Old Stone age both northern Russia and 
northern Siberia were under water, which would effectually 
dispose of any assumed migration to America by way of 
Siberia." 

Taking all these things into consideration, are we justified 
in abandoning the date of man's advent as given in Genesis? 
I, for one, am. not willing to do so. Those scientists who 
sneer at the Bible (they do not all do so by any means) must 
come along with something more definite and trustworthy, 
than they have yet produced, before it need disturb Bible 
students. The fact is, those Bible critics who want to over- 
throw Genesis, on the theory that geology proves man was 



TRUTH ABOUT PREHISTORIC MAN 167 

here more than 6,000 years ago, cannot produce the goods to 
prove it, and all their exaggerated claims of man's existence 
here for a million years is based, not upon geologic, historic 
or archaeological facts but upon that other delusive theory: 
that life, animal and man, has been a gradual development. In 
other words, evolution has made a fool of a whole lot of men 
who might otherwise have developed some common sense. 
But some of these men tell us seriously that man is the prod- 
uct of evolution, through long years and through many 
stages! of development. Is it so? The next chapter will be a 
short lesson in geology to get us ready to take up the question 
of the evolution of man. 



CHAPTER XX. 

A LESSON IN GEOLOGY. 

It will be difficult for me to make the reader, who may 
never have studied the science of geology, understand some 
things I want to say in the next and some following chapters, 
especially in Part II, concerning the "six days of Creation," 
as the phrase is often used when speaking of the first chapter 
of Genesis, unless I give here a short lesson in geology which, 
if carefully read, will give all a Bible student need know in 
order to see the agreement between Genesis and geology. 

Scientists generally believe that our earth was first gaseous, 
afterward a ball of molten fluid, without rocks or a crust of 
any kind, and then as it cooled, the crust began to form on the 
outside. This was the first rock ever formed. From that 
time till now, rocks have been forming. Even now, the rivers 
are carrying down immense quantities of materials, which are 
deposited in the bottom of the sea and along the shores, form- 
ing into rocks, and great masses of material are thrown up 
through volcanoes and poured out over the earth, forming 
thick layers of rock. In former times, all this went on with 
tremendous power, because the crust was thinner and the 
interior more active. So, through long ages, all the rock on 
the earth, several miles thick, has been formed. The first 
layers that formed are called Archaean, and are under all 
the other rocks generally, but not always. Over the Archaean 
was deposited another thick layer of rock called the Proter- 
ozoic, above it the Paleozoic and on top of it the Mesozoic 
and lastly the Cenozoic. These great geological rock divi- 
sions are called eras. 

In speaking of different divisions of. geological time or 



A LESSON IN GEOLOGY 169 

rocks, I use the word eras for the main divisions, then periods, 
epochs and sub-epochs. All books on geology do not use the 
same names. 

If it had been possible for these rocks to form, one layer 
above another, and no earthquake had ever twisted, upheaved 
or disturbed them, they would be in level layers, many miles 
thick, but this is not the way they are found. Slow or sud- 
den movements of the earth, have tilted and twisted these 
rocks everywhere, so that they scarcely ever lie level. 

In order for much thickness of rock to form during any one 
of these eras, the land in that place had to be under water. 
But this was not always so. While rock was forming in one 
place, none was being made in another section. In some 
places, like parts of Canada, the old Archaean rock has 
always been out of water, and no other rocks ever formed on 
top of it. In other places the last rock to form was the 
Proterozoic, the Paleozoic, Mesozoic or Cenozoic, and that 
particular rock is found on top. Therefore, by going all 
over the earth, we can examine all kinds of rock. But even 
if all the rocks could have been formed in level layers, one 
above another, it would not be that way now, for upheavals, 
earthquakes and volcanoes have mixed things up. So we 
look in one part of the earth for one kind of rock and in an- 
other place for another kind. 

If in Ohio, for instance, rock was being formed all the 
time in all the eras, periods, epochs and sub-epochs, then we 
might dig down from top to bottom and examine all the rocks: 
first the surface which we call Holocene, then Pleistocene 
(composed of two divisions), followed by Pliocene, Miocene, 
Eocene, etc., till we reach the lowest Archaean rock, then 
molten interior. When I say "molten" interior I do not neces- 
sarily mean that the interior of the earth is of the consistency 



I ^? 2..houocsNt m&n (Neolithic) 

IS*. FLOOD 

g /man (Paleolithic) 

Ccn030JC Era < * *■* PLK,STOCENE j2. Champlain 



~i 



1 . Glacial 



q 3 « PUOCENK £o/// ^ 

=r. 2. Miocene Ape-like animals 

-2 1# EocENE Mammals, Eohippus, Prosimiae 



GREAT LIFE DESTRUCTION 



3. Cretaceous reptiles 

MeS0?0ic Era 2. Triassic serpents 

1. Jurassic monsters 



.Permian, 



GREAT LIFE DESTRUCTION (Sun , moon and stars appear) 



4. Carboniferous COAL 
. 3. Devonian F,SH 

2 Silurian Atmospheric Changes' 1 

1. Cambrian, or mollusks 

Primordial 



GREAT EARTH CONVULSION 



IEGINNINGOF PLANT LIFE INDICATED 
BY GRAPHITE, IRON 



I rOiCfO^OlCtra CONTINENTS AND OCEANS FORMING 

First land appears 



EARTH CRUST THICKENS 



NO LIFE 
THE MISTS BEGIN TO LIFT 

2nd Archaean Era stratified rock 

BOILING WATER EVERYWHERE 



DAY DISTINGUISHED FROM NIGHT 



NO LIFE 
WATER BEGINS TO LIE ON EARTH 

st Archaean Era 

UNSTRATIFIED ROCK 

Intensely dark 



FIRST OPAQUE EARTH CRUST 



Molten Interior 



A LESSON IN GEOLOGY 171 

of molten metal, for the pressure may cause the earth's in- 
terior to be intensely solid even while hotter than the melting 
temperature. 

The above diagram shows the rock layers from the low- 
est, overlying the molten interior, to the top where we live. 
I am supposing that I have found a place where all the rocks 
are present, one above another. Begin at the bottom, which 
is the oldest and first formed rock, and follow up to the top. 
There are six grand divisions, or rock eras. When, in part 
II, I compare this table with Moses' six days, each of these 
eras is one Mosaic day. 

The Cenozoic is our era and is at the top. It is the most 
interesting to us, for until we reach the bottom, or beginning 
of it, there were no animals like wq see and man had not yet 
arrived on earth. In fact, we have to come up entirely past 
the Eocene, Miocene, Pliocene, Glacial and nearly past the 
Champlain before we discover the first trace of man. The 
fellow who tells you that any trace of the human or any ani- 
mal leading up to the human lived earlier, is simply lying to 
you or has allowed his imagination to warp his better judg- 
ment. At the end of the melting of the great ice sheet man 
appeared. The last great earth disturbance, that which closed 
the Champlain sub-epoch, was the Deluge and it destroyed 
Paleolithic man and with him the mammoth and other great 
beasts. After the Flood the Neolithic race appeared. In 
such places as Europe these people were not descendants of 
those who had lived there but were immigrants from western 
Asia. 

Now let us go to the bottom of the diagram again and see 
if we can understand it. If, then, the earth at first was a ball 
of fire and was in a gaseous state, and slowly became a fluid, 
it was then self luminous. But it gradually cooled until a 



172 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

crust began to form. But this crust after a time reached a 
stage where it was too hot to allow water to lie upon it and 
yet had so far cooled as to be opaque, that is it transmitted no 
light. Every drop of the earth's moisture was above the 
ground as vapors and dense clouds. Just at that time the 
earth was as "dark as Egypt" — no light from the molten in- 
terior and none from the sun, whose every ray was shut 
out by the dense vapors. It is to this period and to this dark 
condition that I think the first part of the second verse of 
Genesis refers, but I want to leave the Bible entirely out of 
this short "lesson in geology.'* 

No doubt, rain formed in the upper regions, in those times, 
but evaporated before it reached the heated, almost molten 
surface of the earth. This first crust that formed over the 
earth, while yet too hot to allow water to fall and remain on 
the surface, was igneous, or fire rock, and is like a cinder, 
unstratified, and nothing alive was in or upon this kind of 
rock, and therefore no fossils are found in this rock. Now 
glance to the bottom of the above diagram and you will see 
that this unstratified rock is the lowest, or First Archaean Era. 

But as the surface cooled more, the rains fell and remained, 
and the ocean and real rocks began to form. These were 
stratified rocks, made by the waves washing and wearing away 
the igneous rocks, creating sediment which deposited itself in 
some kind of layers. But as yet the waters were almost boil- 
ing hot and no life existed anywhere. The crust was yet 
too thin to bear itself up, so it lay level everywhere and was 
all covered with water, except when agitated. This stratified 
rock is the Second Archaean Era. 

Here now are two kinds of rock: unstratified igneous rock 
under, and stratified rock above it, but all too hot for any kind 
of life. So there are no fossils in these two rocks, and the 



A LESSON IN GEOLOGY 173 

age, when these rocks were forming, is sometimes called Azoic 
which means "without life." 

On the Second Archaean rock, another layer of stratified 
rock formed. That was when the crust had cooled and hard- 
ened still more. This third section of rock is called the 
Proterozoic Era. Plant life began in this era. We know this 
not from any fossils found there, for the great mix-up at the 
close of this era would probably destroy all such plants, even 
if as large as trees. LeConte, p. 266, says that between this 
rock and the next above it occurred "the greatest and most 
universal break in the whole stratified series." But we do 
find certain traces of graphite and iron that point to plant life. 
The above author says of this rock, "The existence of the 
lowest forms of vegetable life is almost certain." This rock 
is sometimes known as Eozoic which means "beginning of 
life." During some stage of the Proterozoic era, the crust of 
the earth became thick enough to support itself when pushed up 
above water. Therefore we begin to have land as well as 
ocean before this era closed. 

The fourth section from the bottom is named the Paleozoic 
Era. Although a great preceding earth disturbance probably 
had destroyed all life, yet, immediately in the very first formed 
Paleozoic rock, there appeared an abundance of life, espec- 
ially of shell animals. LeConte, in speaking of this, on p. 
268, says, "It certainly looks like a sudden appearance of 
somewhat highly organized animals without progenitors." 
Where this life came from geology does not tell us, and cannot 
tell us. 

Some authors divide the Paleozoic era into four divisions: 
Cambrian, Silurian, Devonian (or fish rock) and Carbonifer- 
ous (or coal plant rock). The lowest layer, of Cambrian 
rock, is sometimes called Primordial. There is a sudden 



174 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

appearance, of some kinds of life, at the beginning of each 
period of Paleozoic time, and this entire era ended in a gen- 
eral turmoil that destroyed all, or nearly all life, and the next 
era began generally with new life forms. 

Neither bird nor quadruped was on the earth until after 
the close of the Paleozoic era. Neither did the rays of the 
sun ever reach the ground until nearly the close of this era, 
because of the dense clouds. But at length the vapors began 
to dissipate and the sun to shine occasionally, at last bursting 
forth in a full blaze of its glory, in the Permian sub-division, 
which lay between the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras. The 
warm moisture-laden atmosphere, with the sun's rays added, 
accounts for the tremendous growth of trees and plants dur- 
ing the latter part of the Paleozoic era. Chamberlin & Salis- 
bury, devote several pages (603-677, vol. 2) to a discus- 
sion of the moisture-atmospheric phenomena of the Carbonifer- 
ous and Permian ages. Plants put on certain cells to protect 
against sun-light (p. 604, also pp. 659, 669 and 670). 
Geikie, p. 68 says, "The outburst of vegetation during this 
era speaks of a condition of earth and air unknown before or 
since. The heavy veil of clouds that had hitherto shrouded the 
world must have gradually become thinned and broken by 
the advancing coolness of the earth, permitting the sun to 
shine down more and more brightly." 

The next great geological era, above the Paleozoic, is 
the Mesozoic Era. It is divided into three periods: Triassic, 
Jurassic and Cretaceous. This Mesozoic era was ushered in 
by a great rock revolution. LeConte, p. 323, says, "We 
have seen the Paleozoic commence after a great revolution. 
Now the Mesozoic begins also by a similar revolution." Then 
on p. 325, LeConte says, "The most striking fact is the sweep- 
ing change in life forms." The predominant life of all the 



A LESSON IN GEOLOGY 175 

Mesozoic era is immense serpents and winged reptiles. Dur- 
ing all this era there are yet no mammals, no anthropoid apes, 
no men. 

A great break also ushered in the Cenozoic Eta, which ex- 
tends from the Mesozoic to the time when we live. The Cen- 
ozoic is divided into the Tertiary and Quaternary, and each 
of these is sub-divided. LeConte, on p. 363, speaks of the 
great and sudden change of life when the Cenozoic began. 
He says, "It is impossible to account for this, unless we ad- 
mit that thej steps of progress were quicker at this time." In 
other words he admits, without wanting to do so, that such 
sudden and unexplainable changes, from one kind of life to 
another, knock evolution higher than a kite. The first part 
of the Cenozoic era is called the Tertiary period and it ends 
where the Glacial sub-epoch of the Pleistocene epoch begins. 

When the Tertiary period began, suddenly great mammals 
appeared. LeConte, p. 376, says, "The suddenness of their 
appearance is very remarkable. In the very lowest Tertiary, 
without warning and without apparent progenitors, true mam- 
mals appear in great numbers and even of the highest order, 
primates, or monkey tribes," and this author, p. 376, says, 
"Mammals immediately became the dominant class." Enor- 
mous quadrupeds were everywhere, but not the least hint of 
man yet during the> entire Tertiary period. 

Some over anxious evolutionists, have pointed to certain de- 
posits of broken flints, called "artifacts," or "eoliths" found 
in the Tertiary period, but these are only such broken flints, 
as frost and friction make. They find exactly the same kind 
of flakes in the product of mills that break up materials for 
concrete. 

Deniker, p. 359, says, "Nowhere do we find any traces of 
Tertiary man." W. B. Wright, p. 255, says that much 



176 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

doubt has been cast on the artificial origin of the eoliths of 
the Pliocene period. The Enc. Bri, p. 344, vol. 2, says of 
these broken flints which are named eoliths, "Natural forces 
frequently produce a similar result. Much time and energy 
have been wasted in following up such will-o'-the-wisps." 

The Tertiary period is divided into three epochs: Eocene, 
Miocene and Pliocene. The upper part of the Cenozoic era, 
above the Pliocene, is called the Quaternary period. Be- 
tween the upper division of the Tertiary (The Pliocene) and 
the lowest division of the Quaternary (the Pleistocene) there 
was another great life break, caused by the gradual or sud- 
den upheaval of nearly all northern continents. This was the 
beginning of a cold period, all over the globe, but especially 
in North America and Europe. The mammal quadrupeds of 
the Quaternary period were all different from previous animals, 
(LeConte, p. 397). Evidently, either the rock disturbances 
destroyed the mammals of the Pliocene period or the intense 
cold of the glacial sub-epoch did so, and, Whether the new 
species of animals came in the ice forming period or at its 
close, we do know a new class of great beasts like the ele- 
phas antiquus, elephas primigenius (better known as the mam- 
moth) the great cave bear, etc., now make their appearance. 
I am sure that many mammals perished at the end of the Plio- 
cene, and the later new animals originated, comparatively 
suddenly, in the warmer basins during the glacial epoch or 
more likely later, and they lived until the Flood or floods, at 
the end of the Champlain sub-epoch, destroyed them. Le- 
Conte, p. 397, says, "Mammals seem to culminate in the 
Quaternary just before its downfall." Prof. Wright, p. 23, 
says, "Relatively, therefore, to the tenacity of life in species 
the change introducing the Glacial epoch was so rapid as to 
merit the name of a catastrophe." Dana, p. 321, says that 



A LESSON IN GEOLOGY 177 

the Quaternary animals did not come over the Glacial sub- 
epoch, but originated in its very close or afterward in the 
Champlain sub-epoch. 

The Quaternary period is divided into the Pleistocene and 
Holocene epochs. The Pleistocene is divided into the Glacial 
and the Champlain sub-epochs. 

The Glacial sub-epoch was when the northern parts of 
Europe and North America bulged up higher than they are 
now and it grew intensely cold so that mountains of ice formed. 
This ice was so heavy that the crust of the earth bent down 
hundreds of feet lower than now and it grew as hot as in the 
equatorial regions! Then the accumulated ice melted. This 
melting time is the Champlain sub-epoch which terminated in 
great floods that destroyed all the great animals like the mam- 
moth. I think the Flood ended this sub-epoch. 

Man came on the earth for the first time after the Glacial 
sub-epoch ice making time was entirely gone, and the greater 
part of the Champlain sub-epoch had also likely passed. W. 
B. Wright of Dublin, and there is no better authority, quotes 
(p. 41) Prof. Edward Hall, Sec'y of Victoria Institute of 
London, as saying, June, 1 903, that not in one single in- 
stance in the whole of Europe or America has a trace of 
man's existence been found until the ice time had gone and 
the melting time had arrived. 

Holocene, the last epoch, means "present" and extends from 
the Flood to our time. 

With a little attention to this chapter, one who has never 
studied the science of geology, may understand how well that 
science agrees with Genesis, when I take up that matter in 
Part II. 

The reader is now ready, I hope, to discuss with me, in the 
next chapter, the question: "Is man an evolution?" 



CHAPTER XXI. 

IS MAN THE PRODUCT OF DARWIN'S EVOLUTION P 

Genesis gives no hint anywhere that man is a development 
from the animal, the anthropoid. In fact, Genesis tells us 
the first man, Adam, was an intelligent man, endowed with 
all the faculties of the modern man and was regarded by 
the Creator from the first as a free and accountable agent. 

In what I shall say in these pages on evolution, I do not 
want to be understood as saying that a man cannot believe 
in sensible evolution and accept Genesis at the same time, 
for I certainly believe Genesis and I also believe evolution, 
but not that sort of evolution which those "monkey men" 
believe who reject Genesis. Well do that class of scientists 
know that if they could establish it as a fact that man had 
evolved from the lower forms of animal life, through untold 
centuries of time, they would thus overthrow the plain teaching 
of Genesis. I have noticed that whenever an educator gets 
the monkey imbedded in his brain, there is no room thereafter 
for the Bible, and if he comments at all on the subject, it 
is, always, that if you believe his sort of evolution you cannot 
accept the teaching of Genesis, and ever after he is hunting 
for the missing link — and always looking where he will never 
find it. May I advise him to take a peep in a mirror? 

I do not fault the man who believes there is in nature a 
law of evolution, but I do censure him for insisting that this 
law is^ a god in itself and in trying to have it account for so 
many things of which there is not a particle of evidence. 
The appearance of new and varied forms of wild life that 
can be credited to evolution are but a small percent tof that 
which it is folly to attempt to place under this law. The 
law of intelligent, purposeful design will account for ninety 



IS MAN AN EVOLUTION? 179 

and nine of the wonders of nature's creations to where evolu- 
tion will account for the one. 

There is no question but that forms of animal and vegetable 
life may be very much modified and improved by selection and 
cultivation, but almost invariably under the eye of a master 
mind, and even then it is doubtful if the nature or species 
ever undergoes a radical change. I do not believe evolution- 
ists can point us to a single instance where one species has 
changed tfo another distinct species by a gradual series of 
changes or development. Dawson says: "Species are im- 
mutable and do not pass into each other. On the contrary 
they appear at once, in their perfect state, and continue un- 
changed till forced off the stage of action." This is exactly 
true, and if one species has ever been changed into another 
it is by some law of nature altogether unknown to us — sudden 
and unexpected, which amounts practically to a new creation, 
although previous life forms may have been used. 

We never see a hint in nature about us of a new species 
developing from an old one. Dana, p. 345, says, "In the 
long geological succession of groups there are even fewer 
examples of blendings than occur in existing life." 

If man came from the animal, it was by some such undiscov- 
ered law as this, in the hands of an intelligent Creator, but there 
is not an iota of proof in geology, natural history or any- 
where else that man has been the result of slow development 
or evolution, such as many modern evolutionists would have 
us believe. 

Evolutionists assume that man started as a bestial savage, 
and they insist that we allow that assumption to stand as a 
fact. It is not true at all. They cannot bring forward a 
particle of evidence to substantiate any such claim. The first 
men were brainier than modern men. Rawlinson, p. 1 3, 



180 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

says, "In Egypt there is no indication of an early period of 
savagery." Geikie, p. 131, says, "So far from there being 
deterioration as we go back, we find it rather as we come 
down toward the present; for the oldest cave dwellers, 
claimed by some scientific men as marking great antiquity, 
show a far higher degree of mental activity than much later 
times." Goodspeed, p. 55, says that as far back as we can 
penetrate in Babylonia, civilization existed. 

They tell us man has many characteristics of the animal. 
Certainly, but that only shows that the Creator chose to have 
it so, not that one developed from the other. A chair has 
four legs, so has a horse but one is not a development fr;om 
the other. A comet has a tail, so has a sky rocket and a 
tadpole, but no one of these is a development from one of 
the others. If beings should be discovered on the planet 
Mars and they should prove to have many of the character- 
istics of man, would that prove that one developed ft\pm the 
other? It is mere assumption and presumption to say that 
man developed from animals when there is nothing to prove it 
except certain similarities of construction. 

Evolutionists have been making a heroic effort, in recent 
years, to establish some connecting link between man and the 
anthropoid apes, but without success. They start out with 
the theory that man's body, brain, mind, morals and religion 
have been a development, but they have utterly failed to prove 
their theory. 

Wherever man has submitted himself to the leadership 
of divine enlightenment, I believe there has been an upward 
development, but very rarely elsewhere. Where laws of sani- 
tation, education and religion are enforced, there man may 
improve, but nowhere else. I believe the largest, brainiest, 
healthiest, longest lived people who ever existed on the earth 



IS MAN AN EVOLUTION? 181 

were the first people, and were it not for the accumulation of 
knowledge, locked up in books and machinery, we should 
not begin to compare in deeds of valor or accomplishments 
with the ancient Egyptians or Babylonians, and they were, 
very probably, only second rate as compared with their ante- 
diluvian forefathers. Have the Babylonians developed in 
any direction whatever since Hammurabi, who lived in Abra- 
ham's time, wrote his code of laws? No, indeed, the lowest 
type of humanity that ever inhabited the Euphrates valley lives 
there now and exactly the same thing is true of Egypt. The 
civilization of Egypt 4,000 years ago, when they built the 
pyramids, is the wonder of the world, but she has never been 
able to reach that advancement since. The earthworks left 
by the ancient Mjbund Builders in the Mississippi Valley, 
and the ruins in the southwest and in Mexico, Yucatan and 
Peru show that the ancient inhabitants of America were more 
advanced than the later tribes. So would it be everywhere if 
it were not for outside help — divine aid — or human, inspired 
by divine revelation. 

The Northwestern Christian Advocate says: 

"The public has heard much of the degeneracy of the 
splendid stock of mountain whites of the South owing to their 
isolation from religious, educational and commercial influences. 
It is perhaps not so well known that there is a small similar 
community within thirty miles of the city of Philadelphia. 
These people are residents of the Pine Belt section of New 
Jersey. They have back of them a splendid Revolutionary 
ancestry, but physically isolated and deprived of religious 
and educational institutions they have fallen into a shocking 
state of uncivilization. They graphically demonstrate the 
downward movement of an untouched community." 

Rawlinson, p. 7, says, "The Weddas are believed to be 



182 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

degenerate descendants of the Aryans who conquered India. 
If this be indeed so, it is difficult to conceive of a degenera- 
tion which could be more complete." 

Morris, who is an evolutionist, p. 1 36, describes a v^oman 
whom Stanley saw in Africa, not in prehistoric times, but in 
the 19th century A. D., as follows: "Protruding lips over- 
hanging her chin, a prominent abdomen, narrow flat chest, 
sloping shoulders, long arms, feet strongly turned inward, and 
very srrort lower legs. She was certainly deserving of being 
classed as an extremely low, degraded, almost a bestial type 
of a human being." What a fine missing link if the skeleton 
of this had been found in an ancient cave ! 

Now I desire to quote an example of prehistoric man, a 
degenerate, so say the evolutionists themselves. It is the 
Neanderthal man who lived too late to fit in their "gradual" 
grow-better theory. Duckworth, p. 1 33, says, "It is no 
longer possible to claim only an ancestral position for that 
type in its relation to modern men. It may be regarded as 
a degenerate form." 

There is no proof whatever that in man, unaided, is any 
inherent or natural power that would /or could work an evolu- 
tion to a higher civilization. Genesis teaches that in spite of 
all that God did to lift up humanity, in many countries man 
degenerated, and it is only as the Gospel reaches and takes 
hold upon a people that they ever have or ever will make any 
marked advancement. Natural selection cannot be shown 
to have accomplished anything in that direction. 

These men who have been ransacking the earth, seeking 
the missing link, looking into every cave and digging deep 
into the glacial deposits — what have they found? If they 
would tell you the truth it would be that the most ancient 
skulls show a better brain capacity than the later ones. Do 



IS MAN AN EVOLUTION? 183 

not take my word for it but get a standard work on the "Cave 
Men" or "Glacial Men" and read for yourself. In almost 
every instance the skulls of the men of the caves of the mam- 
moth era, the antediluvians, are a better type than those of 
the post-diluvian or Neolithic caves. Let me name a few 
examples : 

One of the most ancient skeletons ever found was in a 
gravel pit at Galley Hill, England, in the high level, or 
oldest glacial gravel, along with the bones of the mammoth. 
This man, then, was an antediluvian, for the mammoth was 
extinct after that time, The implements found, according 
to Duckworth, p. 57, were of "great antiquity" but the en- 
tire skeleton, including the skull "Does not in fact differ 
essentially from the modern European" (p. 59, Duckworth). 

The Engis skull, found in a cave on the bank of the river 
Meuse, Belgium, is another very old one, found imbedded 
with the bones of the mammoth. Sir Charles Lyell, who 
examined this skull, says on p. 80 of his Antiquity of Man, 
"Although the forehead was somewhat narrow it might be 
matched by the skulls of individuals of European race," and 
Duckworth, p. 18, says of the same skull, "The differences 
separating this skull from those of modern Europeans are 
extraordinarily slight." 

The two examples above given will suffice to show that the 
oldest skeletons of men yet fbund compare well with Euro- 
peans of today and are very much higher in type than the 
lowest types of humanity to be found now living in Australia, 
Africa and Terra Del Fuego, South America. "No lower 
type of man found in any ancient cave than the Australian 
of today in point of cranium," says Prof. Dawson, p. 394, 
Origin of the Wjorld. "As great difference mow among 
skulls as then," says Lyell, p. 89. 



1S4 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

Besides the new book by Prof. Osborn, Men of the Old 
Stone Age, another edition of Prof. Keith's, The Antiquity 
of Man, has just c*>me off the press. These men are both 
ultra evolutionists and are exaggerating every feature of evi- 
dence that points toward the remote past, therefore any ad- 
missions they make against their own pet theories must be 
given great weight, because they are both very loth to admit 
weak places in their hypothetic ancient man. 

Both these authors admit that the most ancient skulls are, 
on an average, equal in brain capacity to men of today. I 
will let Prof. Wright of Oberlin, in the April, 1916, 
Biblhtheca Sacra, tell what these two new books say about 
these ancient skulls: "One of the most striking results of the 
investigations detailed by these authors is the establishment of 
the fact that the brain capacity of the prehistoric skulls so far 
discovered (if we except the so-called Pithecanthropus erec- 
tus) is equal bo, and in some cases larger than that of the aver- 
age modern man. The standard brain size of modern human 
races measures from 1350 c. c. to 1450 c. c, whereas that 
of the Piltdown skull is estimated by some to be 1 500 c. c, 
the Neanderthal skull 1408 c. c, that of the man of Spy 
1 723 c. c, that of La Chapelle 1626 c. c, ( of the Cromag- 
non race from 1590 c. c. to 1880 c. c." When Mr. 
Roosevelt was president he had no man in his cabinet with 
a brain as large as these ancient men ! 

These two books also show that the men they exhibit tp 
us, built up from these skulls, are many times only guessed at. 
The Piltdown is given by Keith as 1600 c. c, while Osborn 
gives it but 1 300 and Dr. Woodward, who was overanxious 
to make it appear bestial, gave it 1070 c. c. Prof. Wright 
also says these new books show, "That many sfc>-called" ape- 
like characteristics not found in the Neanderthal skull are 



IS MAN AN EVOLUTION? 185 

found in the skulls of modern Europeans; while many peculi- 
arities of that skull have largely disappeared from existing 
races." In other words, there are as many ape-like men now 
as then. 

Ex-President Roosevelt has an article in the February, 
1916, National Geographic Magazine, but it is nothing more 
than an endorsement of Prof. Osborn's book. The one out- 
standing feature of the Roosevelt article is the outlandish 
dates he ascribes to some of these prehistoric skulls. These 
age figures are only empty assertions. There is absolutely 
nothing to uphold any such wild figures. 

If I should declare that the war of the Revolution occurred 
200,000 and the Civil War 100,000 years ago, Mr. Roose- 
velt would likely place me in the Ananias class. My state- 
ment Would be just as truthful as his, and I can produce as 
much evidence to back me up as he can for stating that the 
Java man lived 500,000 years ago, the Heidelberg man 
250,000, the Piltdown man 100,000 and the Neanderthal 
man 50,000 years ago. Such statements are bald fabrica- 
tions based on nothing that even squints in the direction of a 
fact. They are to be classed along with Berosus' kings 
who he said ruled 432,000 years before the Deluge, and with 
the Adventures of Baron Munchausen and Gulliver s Travels. 

The Neanderthal skull, discovered in the valley of the 
Neander near Dusseldorf, has been pointed to as the most 
ape-like skull ever found in ancient deposits, but it spoils the 
evolution theory, for it is much more recent than the skulls 
mentioned above, and therefore would prove the very opposite 
of evolution, if it proved anything. But this skull has a 
brain capacity even above the average of barbarians of the 
present day (Wright, p. 32 1 ) . 

We might run through the entire list of relics of ancient 



186 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

man and there cannot be found even an intimation that there 
has been a development, rather the opposite, for Dawson says 
the men of the mammoth age (antediluvians) were larger 
and branier than those that followed and that it was an "Age 
of great cerebral capacity." Neither must it be forgotten 
that these prehistoric cave and post-glacial men were the bar- 
barians of their day, living in out-of-the-way places, engaged 
in hunting and fishing, while the real brainy and civilized 
men of their day were building cities, inventing musical in- 
struments, tilling the soil, writing poetry and building ships 
as narrated in the 4th and 6th chapters of Genesis. Even the 
cave men of the antediluvian times could draw pictures of 
the hairy elephant and other extinct animals. These draw- 
ings are not much if any inferior to those recently found in 
the less ancient caves of Altamira, Spain and elsewhere. 

We find in Egypt the pictures of the Pharoahs even back 
to the earliest historical period and these men had heads as 
well shaped as the men of today. We have no pictures of 
Babylon's first men but we dig up statues representing Sume- 
rian heads. One of these and one from earliest Egypt I give 
on another page. 

How do the following modern men compare with the ancient 
heads? I know this is not a fair comparison, for the statue 
heads are pictures of the ancient civilized men and the others 
are today's barbarians. But it is the same the evolutionist 
gives us, only reversed. He will pass by all ancient civilized 
heads even ignoring the most ancient prehistoric well-shaped 
skulls, like the Engi® and Galley Hill, and select the most 
deformed and defective barbarian of the ancient caves and 
compare him, not with the same kind or the even more degrad- 
ed man of our day, but with a Gladstone or a Daniel Webster, 
and then say, "See how man has evolved from bestial savage- 



IS MAN AN EVOLUTION? 187 

ry!" Certainly, but suppose we take the skull of the most 
ancient Egyptian, Cheops' for instance, and compare it with 
the skull of a degraded Australian outcast of today and say, 
"See how man has devoluted!" One comparison proves just 
as much as the other. We laymen have been fed like young 
birds on this sort of carrion until it has become nauseating. 





SOUTH AFRICAN EAST INDIAN 

Any man of ordinary sense knows that in every age of the 
world the best shaped heads are found in the cultured centers 
and the lowest types in the out-of-the-way places where men 
struggle for an| existence, deprived of educational advantages 
and Christian influences. When Cheops lived in Egypt and 
Naram Sin and Hammurabi lived in Babylon, 4,000 years 
ago, barbarians lived in the wilds of Europe and Africa, 
and were the Neolithic cave men; and still more anciently 
while the Mehujaels, the Methuselahs and the Lamechs lived 
and attained a high civilization in western Asia, the Paleo- 
lithic barbarians hunted mammoths and cave bears at the foot 
of the glaciers in Europe. We have no real pictures of 



188 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

these antediluvian mammoth-hunting barbarians of nearly 
6,000 years ago, but if we had, they would be far above 
the barbarians of today. 

But some ardent advocate of the missing link may' call 
my attention to the fact that I have said but little about the 
three recent finds that have been heralded broadcast as cer- 
tainly the long looked for ape-man. These are the Java 
man (Pithecanthropus erectus), the Mauer jaw of Heidel- 
berg and the Taubach teeth. 

In 1891 and 1892 there were found, scattered over an 
area of about 50 feet in diameter in volcanic tufa near Trinil, 
Java, two teeth, the top part of a skull and a femur bone. 
It is disputed as to what geological age they belong and 
whether all are parts of the same skeleton. The cranium 
is of small capacity, but not inferior to that of existing races 
of men. The teeth are large for man and the femur is en- 
tirely human. It is a wonderful stretch of the imagination 
to call this a missing link and shows that the advocates of 
that theory are hard pressed for anything that points in their 
direction. The truth is, these bones would not be accepted 
in any court in the world as evidence onj any question, and if 
the facts of Genesis depended on such a miserable make-shift 
the critics would not need to fight so hard against it. It 
would fall of its own weight. 

Tarr's geology, p. 443, says, "It is by no means certain 
that this skeleton (Java man) may not be that of some degen- 
erate man. Some in fact have explained it as the skeleton 
of an idiot." O, what fine evidence to overthrow Genesis! 

As I say above, it is not certain when this volcanic tufa, in 
which these bones were found, was thrown up from below. 
It is just as likely it was within the past few hundred years, 
and the parts of this creature are most likely those of a native, 



IS MAN AN EVOLUTION? 189 

not at all ancient. Here is a description of the Java man's 
skull, taken from Beddard's Mammalia, p. 584. "The con- 
tents of the cranium must have been 1000 cm., that is to say 
400 cm. more than the actual capacity of any anthropoid 
ape, and quite as great as or a trifle greater than the cranial 
capacity of some female Australians and Veddas." They 
tell us it would take 500,000 years for such a low type to 
evolve into the present type of man. That is the only way 
they have of fixing its date. Therefore the present degraded 
native Australian is now living 500,000 years ago! Do you 
see the absurdity of their conclusion? 

If there is one missing link, of necessity, there would be 
untold thousands of them, of all shades of gradations, reach- 
ing back from man a million years, and the rocks would be 
full of them. Let these men trot out a complete skeleton, 
one a little more ape-like, and not one alone but a score of 
them and people will begin to pay some attention to their 
finds. Another thing about this Java find that has knocked 
our missing link brethren silly is the fact that their theory 
all along has been that the ape-man's head developed first 
and the legs put on human appearance later, but this miser- 
able Java "link" had to spoil their theory by turning up with 
much better man legs than head. What a pity ! But they can 
easily get out of that by asserting that the skull and femur are 
not parts of the same skeleton — the latter a half a million 
years less ancient! 

Prof. Keane's Man Past and Present, on p. 3, says of these 
Java bones: "They do not bridge over the impassable gap 
between man and the gorilla or chimpanzee." Prof. Keane 
is one of the rankest of rank evolutionists and his book is quite 
recent. He would like to have set up the claim that these 
Java bones constitute the missing link, had he dared to do so. 



190 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

In 1907 Prof. Schotensack found, under 80 ft, of sand 
and gravel near Heidelberg, Germany, a man's jaw. The 
chin was absent, the teeth larger than ordinary, but not so 
large as that of some Australians of today (Wright, p. 309), 
and while the jaw is abnormal, it would never have been 
resorted to as an argument favoring the missing link if its ad- 
vocates had anything better. 

As for the two teeth, found in gravel fifteen feet deep at 
Taubach in Saxe- Weimar, the authorities are disputing as to 
what they may have come from, and as the likelihood of build- 
ing a monkey man from these two old teeth is so improbable, 
it hardly warrants me in giving it other mention farther than 
to say if these critics are unwilling to accept the Samson jaw- 
bone story they must not ask us to accept these teeth out of 
another jaw-bone. 

These evolutionists are so anxious to have it appear that 
the teeth, jaws and skulls of these ancient cave post-glacial 
men were monkey-like in appearance, that they construct 
from these bones imaginary men and exaggerate their features. 
The Piltdown, sometimes called the Sussex man, made up 
from the fragments of a skull, part of a jaw-bone and a few 
teeth found in a gravel bed in southern England, is a good 
example of how unsatisfactory and untrustworthy these finds 
are. When first found these bones were heralded as the 
most ancient and most ape-like human remains yet discovered, 
and Dr. Smith- Woodward of the British Museum drew an im- 
aginary man which I reproduce from Current Opinion for 
March, 1913, by permission. The reader will find this sup- 
posed picture of this Piltdown man on the page with the pic- 
ture of the mammoth in chapter XIX. 

But it soon developed that these bones, were not nearly so 






IS MAN AN EVOLUTION? 191 

ancient as at first thought, much less ancient than many other 
well developed skulls such as the Tilbury and the Engis. 
Dr. Woodward placed the Piltdown man's skull at 1070 c. 
c, about that of some low-typed Australians now living. 
When its more modern age was realized there was less reason 
to magnify its bestial appearance and Prof. Keith of the 
English Royal College of Surgeons built up another imagi- 
nary man from the same bones, "with a brain as big as that of 
modern man," says Current Opinion, a man of 1600 c. c. 
brain capacity, as good as Napoleon. Then some scientist, 
holding this view drew up the following as the Piltdown man: 




Now comes Prof. Osborn's new book (1915) claiming 
that the Piltdown jaw is that of an ape and was entirely 
distinct from the piece of skull which was human. 

How can we place any value on this Piltdown argument 
for the evolution of man from the ape family? It is as good 
as they have, and they expect us to reject the Genesis account 



192 



NAAMAH AND NIMROD 



of man's advent on the strength of it, and refer to the rest 
of us as old fogies if we hesitate to join the ranks of the 
monkey ites. Such flimsy proofs may satisfy some people 
but the hard-headed business man, farmer or mechanic is not 
so gullible. 

They lose interest in the Neanderthal bones because they 
are too recent, almost Neolithic age and they refer to him as 
a degenerate. Bah! If the Galley Hill man v/as recon- 
structed he would look something like the following and you 
might almost imagine you recognize him: 




(likely) GALLEY HJlL man 



Why do they not make up a specimen from the Galley 
Hill bones? These are probably as old as any human remains 



IS MAN AN EVOLUTION? 193 

ever found and the brain capacity was as large as that of a 
modern philosopher — and that is the reason they never put 
the Galley Hill man on dress parade, for it would prove the 
very opposite of evolution. Such remains as the Engis, Men- 
tone, Tilbury, S. Acheul, Ipswich, Denise and Galley Hill 
are much older than such as the Neanderthal man which is 
the most ape-like ever discovered except possibly the Java man. 

Go into any large crowd and you can pick out faces as 
monkey-like as these Piltdown exaggerations and if you go to 
Australia or Africa you will find far lower types. But these 
pictures do not tell the truth. First, they do not find bones 
enough of these prehistoric men to know how they looked. 
The teeth do not necessarily indicate the man. I have seen 
fine featured men with ugly protruding teeth, and men of 
great brain power with abnormal jaws, unsightly noses or ill 
shaped heads. These things possibly no more indicate the 
mental calibre of a man than the size of his feet or the ca- 
pacity of his stomach. 

All they had from which to make up the Java man (Pithe- 
canthropus), a picture of whom you can see in the books on 
early man, was a femur bone, two teeth, a piece of the jaw 
and a small part of the upper skull. Like the Piltdown 
bones, the evolutionists are quarreling whether these Java bones 
all belong to the same creature and as to the geological age 
of them. 

The Heidelberg man is made up from a jaw bone (the 
Mauer jaw, mentioned in this and the next chapter). That 
is all they found of him from which to construct their imagi- 
nary man. 

Let me give a few admissions that scientists make about 
these imaginary monkey-men, which prove that these pictures 
do not tell the truth: 



194 N A AM AH AND NIMROD 

Duckworth, p. 1 1 , says the teeth in this Heidelberg jaw are 
like those of Australians of today. Prof. Sollas, about the 
most able living authority, says, "In some respects less simian 
than that which can be observed in existing races." This jaw- 
bone does not prove very much evolution, if we can find plenty 
of the same kind of jaws now. 

The La Chapelle man is another cave skull whose picture 
is paraded in the books as a bestial human. Duckworth says 
of this, "The capacity of the brain case is surprisingly large 
and in some respects less savage in appearance than Austral- 
ians." Prof. Wright, p. 323, says, "This skull is estimated 
at 1626 cubic centimeters, somewhat more than the average 
European of the present day." These evolutionists are looking 
in the wrong place, for the missing link. Better leave the 
gravel pits and caves and go to Europe and get a living speci- 
men! 

Now, a word about Mr. Pithecanthropus Erectus. Prof. 
Wright, on p. 393, says, "This cranium is not inferior to that 
of some existing races of men." It has a brain capacity of 
about 1 ,000 cubic centimeters, but Prof. Virchow says some 
living Negritos have as low as 950 cubic centimeters, and 850 
cubic centimeters for an inhabitant of New Britain. L. 
Manouvrier, in the Eric. Brl> says this Java man "stands at 
the level of the smallest skulls which have occasionally been 
found among the lowest savage peoples." 

Prof. Clodd, in his Story of Primitive Man, on p. 59, af- 
ter describing the many prehistoric skulls, says, "Most of us 
have met people of whose heads the same might be said." 

The imaginary prehistoric Piltdown man shown above is con- 
structed from the most ape-like bones these evolutionists can 
get from these ancient caves and gravel pits, yet they are not 
different from bones of men living today. This is how mis- 





















-simmm* 


g\ 








\ 












H^j. 








* ■ 












MpF- 








■ 








-^ IMBI 


I *••$> j 




';■ 




1 










Sf 




— ^ 




NEGRITO 






DRAVID 


A N 


MODERN) 




VEDDA 





REPRODUCED BY COURTESY OF TRAVEL 




AN ANARCHIST 



IS MAN AN EVOLUTION? 195 

erably these evolutionists fall down in every attempt they make 
to prove these foolish theories. 

Why do not these ape-man hunters stop making imaginary 
cave men and) point us to specimens of living savages, such as 
the Negrito, modern Dravidian and Vedda, pictures of whom 
I reproduce on another page by courtesy of Travel magazine. 

I might also inquire whether these ancient caves have yielded 
anything to compare with that other trio shown on the page 
under the Negrito, Dravidian and Vedda. 

Now tell me whether these modern degenerates do not look 
as degraded and ape-like as the exaggerated Piltdown an- 
cient gravel pit man? If these learned men who spend so 
much time trying to prove that man has developed from the 
monkey would turn their attention to proving that the monkey is 
a degenerate offspring of man, I verily believe they would have 
more success! 

Is man a special creation? I have shown conclusively, I 
think, that there is absolutely nothing in geology, history or 
archaeology to prove that man is an evolution, as that term is 
generally understood, but there is everything, both in Genesis 
and in geology, to cause us to believe that man came into being 
suddenly; possibly not a special creation, but what practical- 
ly amounts to that — a transformation and enduement that could 
not come about under any known law of nature. The evo- 
lutionists are practically driven to take this position themselves, 
(see Chamberlin & Salisbury, p. 294, vol. 2) for if man came 
by gradations where are the living links and where are the 
fossil links? Was there only one "missing link," and only 
one first ape-man? Let these monkey evolutionists answer 
that! 

Morris, a rank evolutionist, p. 65, says that so far as we 
know only one ape-like animal developed into man. All the 



196 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

others fell by the wayside. Sad, indeed, and startling; for 
where would we have been had it died of chicken-pox or 
monkey colic! 

They tell us that one monkey developed into one man. I 
deny it, and they look at me with amazement. I say also to 
them that if one monkey developed into one man, then a thou- 
sand monkeys would have developed into a thousand men. 
They deny it. They knock 999 monkeys, yea millions 
of willing monkeys on the head while I kill off but one. 
I am the man who should stand amazed at the unbelief 
of these evolutionists. I deny that any one monkey ever 
developed into any one man. They deny that all the monkeys, 
except one, developed into men. How inconsistent they are! 

If there is more than one "link" and more than one first 
ape-man, which they must admit if their theory be true, 
where are the thousand, yea million strands reaching back 
from men to orangoutangs? Anthropologists everywhere ad- 
mit that man has not descended from any anthropoid now liv- 
ing and they admit, too, that there are no living links or they 
would be pointing them out. Did you ever stop to think that 
there is a much more reasonable expectation of finding the liv- 
ing link in some cave or in a tree than there is of finding one 
fossilized? That they cannot find the former proves con- 
clusively that the latter is a pure fabrication. I want to as- 
sure them, too, that there is a fortune for him who discovers 
one of these living missing links. The museums are on the 
lookout for that very thing! 

That other forms of animal and vegetable life, beside man, 
came about suddenly and without linking up with anterior life, 
geology abundantly shows. When mammals appeared the 
biggest and best came first, so with reptiles and birds and 
trees. Let these evolutionists explain the unaccountable geo- 



IS MAN AN EVOLUTION? 197 

logical breaks between the end of one kind of life and the 
beginning of the next, and altogether different life, if the new 
life came by their kind of evolution, and let them explain the 
sudden and unaccountable appearance of new and distinct 
species. 

Take up any work on geology, Le Conte's college geology, 
for instance, and read about these sudden beginnings of new 
life. On p. 268 Le Conte says, of the first beginning of ani- 
mal life on the earth, as shown by geologic rocks: "It looks 
like a sudden appearance of somewhat highly organized ani- 
mals, without progenitors." Chamberlin & Salisbury (p. 
Ill, vol. 2) say the same thing. 

By "animals" here they mean small shell life not what we 
generally mean by animals. On p. 35 1 Le Conte speaks of the 
first appearance of ordinary hard-wood trees. He says: "The 
suddenness of their appearance, etc." On p. 297 he says: 
"At a certain time fishes seem to suddenly appear, as if they 
came without progenitors." On p. 363 the first appearance 
of mammals is told thus: "There is an apparently sudden 
change in the life system," and he adds, "It is impossible to 
account for this." On p. 376 of mammals he says: "The 
suddenness of their appearance is very remarkable." 

Chamberlin & Salisbury, p. 222, vol. 3, say, "The origin 
of placentals (mammals) is one of the outstanding problems 
of paleontology." The same authors say that the monkey 
family, as large as the ape or chimpanzee, came suddenly in 
the Miocene period. These authors also tell us life shows it- 
self quickly always after destructive breaks. On p. 244, 
vol. 2, they say the first Paleozoic life was abundant and full 
except there were no vertebrates, and on p. 280, they say, 
"This is a fine array for a first appearance." Of land in- 
sects, when they first appear, these authors say, "And they 



198 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

were then rather highly developed." These authors, on p. 
293, say, of the first appearance of the trilobite and especial- 
ly as to its eyes, "They were developed in a notable degree." 
The facts are, that the first appearance of every species was 
a completed, rounded out animal of that kind. These authors 
tell us that animal life was 60 to 90 per cent a complete evo- 
lution when the Paleozoic age began. That is, the millions 
upon millions of years since that time have added but 10 per 
cent to what they had at first appearance. While these 
authors are evolutionists, they admit that geology does not sus- 
tain that theory, and have to fall back on creation, or as they 
call it, "Abrupt Mutations." On p. 294, vol. 2, these authors 
throw up the entire "gradual evolution theory" in these 
words: "The doctrine of evolution by distinct and abrupt mu- 
tations has recently been advanced. This maintains that 
changes, as great as those usually regarded as distinguishing 
species, may take place between parent and offspring, and that 
the new characters so introduced may be perpetuated and re- 
main permanent." With this statement they hang Darwin's 
evolution as high as Haman, and there is where it must stay, 
if we believe the teachings of geology. These authors, on p. 
296, vol. 2, say, "Unknown causes that may have brought 
about a mutating stage simultaneously in large numbers of 
leading species, may account for the sudden and diversified 
life appearing at certain stages." Why not have said that 
God did it by a creative act or by one of his laws unknown to 
us? 

All such authors try to explain these sudden appearances 
by saying that the rock disturbance, just prior, may have de- 
stroyed the connecting links, but on p. 301, vol. 2, the above 
authors say, "But this is not wholly satisfactory, for some of 
the earlier beds are not greatly changed," between one life and 



IS MAN AN EVOLUTION? 199 

the next and absolutely different life. In speaking of the sud- 
den new life following a great earth convulsion that separates 
two periods, Le Conte, p. 271, calls attention to other places 
where there were no earth disturbances and says, "Neverthe- 
less, the life-systems are here, as everywhere, quite different." 
They thus admit that the sudden appearance of life comes 
sometimes without a preceding disturbance or rock revolution. 

On p. 288, Le Conte, of the first appearance of plants on 
land, says, "We have here a somewhat sudden appearance of 
land-plants, as if they came without progenitors." See also 
322, 323, 273 and many other pages. You will find this in 
all geologies and it is the death blow to gradual development 
of one species of life from another. Man's appearance on 
earth was exactly that way, not even the shadow of any con- 
necting links between his appearance and that of the animal 
life preceding him. Yes indeed, the account of man's sudden 
appearance in the first chapter of Genesis exactly agrees with 
what geology tells us, and Bible believers can congratulate 
themselves that geology is but one of the many things that 
rises up to substantiate that wonderful book of Genesis. 

Evolutionists all tell us that man has not evolved from any 
of the ape or monkey tribe now living, nor from any that has 
lived for millions of years back — because the gap between man 
and the anthropoid ape is too great. Prof. Clodd, an evolu- 
tionist, on p. 22 of his Story of Primitive Man, says, "Man 
is not the lineal descendant of his nearest relation, the ape, and 
it therefore follows that the division between the two cannot 
have been later than Miocene times, about the close of the 
Eocene." Darwin himself made the same admission. Mor- 
ris, p. 42, says, "Man's ancestry lies much further back in 
time, and his progenitor must have been constituted differently 
from any of the existing large apes." On p. 114, this evolu- 



200 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

tionist says, "The gap in intellect between the highest apes and 
the lowest man is a considerable one, which no existing ape 
seems likely ever to cross. The ape's mental ability does not 
seem to be on the increase." Certainly not, for the first ape or 
baboon was exactly what he is now and he will never be any- 
thing else. These evolutionists would never have admitted this 
only that they are compelled to do so. 

A recent number of Current Opinion calls Prof. Pocock 
"That distinguished man of science, one of the illustrious liv- 
ing authorities on everything connected with what goes by the 
name of missing link," and then quotes this from him, "The 




GORILLA 



four existing kinds of apes, namely, gorilla, chimpanzee, orang- 
outang and gibbon, form with man, the anthropomorpha. Of 
the apes the gorilla is the most man-like on the whole, though 
the chimpanzee runs him close in this respect, and the gibbon 
is the most monkey-like. The differences between the gibbon 



IS MAN AN EVOLUTION? 201 

and the gorilla are almost as important as those between the 
gorilla and man. Moreover the "links" between the gibbon 
and monkey and the four apes above enumerated, are missing, 
just as the link between man and the apes is missing. Man 
is of course not the direct descendant of any living ape, nor is 
any one of the four kinds of living apes descended from an- 
other." 

Tarr's geology, p. 443, says, "So far, the rocks have failed 
utterly to yield any positive proof that man is descended from 
lower animals." Why, then, do these evolutionists ask us to 
believe man came that way? Do they want us to believe a 
lie? 

A college professor, who believes in man's animal origin, 
was throwing on a screen pictures of monkeys, baboons and 
chimpanzees and pointing out their resemblance to man, when a 
clodhopper in the audience asked if it was true that none of the 
text-books of today on any branch of science claims any of 
the pictures the professor had exhibited were man's progeni- 
tors. The professor hesitatingly admitted that no one claims 
that any of these either living or geological were in the line of 
man's descent. Then said the clodhopper, "Will you please 
show us a few animals resembling man through which man 
did descend?" This disconcerted the professor, for he had 
not one such picture. No such animals exist now or in any 
geological formation of the past. This illustration shows how 
the entire theory rests only on speculation, conjecture and 
hypothesis and never on fact. 

They tell us that away back in Eocene times the common 
ancestor of both ape and man, the prosimiae, lived, and that 
from this common ancestor there came two branches, one 
leading up to the monkey tribe, and the other to man, all the 



202 



NAAMAH AND NIMROD 



while, during these millions of years, getting farther apart. 
This figure will demonstrate the idea. 



HQLOCENE 



07*. 




Frosimiae 
EOCENE 

Now see in what a pickle this puts these evolutionists. If 
our monkey tribe has descended from this prosimiae, it is nat- 
ural to suppose we shall find the tracks of their descendants all 
the way up from Eocene times until now. We do find, on 
that line, here and there, an animal of the ape family, but it 
is just as likely that each one is an animal cf his own kind and 
did not evolve from the next more ancient one, which had dis- 
appeared a million years before this one arrived. So, we find 
ape-like animals on this line reaching up from prosimiae, but 
should we not also find the relics, or links, all along the other 
line from that Eocene ancestor up to man? But not so, man 



IS MAN AN EVOLUTION? 203 

appears suddenly, quite a while after the Glacial sub-epoch, 
but not a bone, tooth, tool or footprint anywhere on the line 
back of man! How surprising, if man really came from the 
same source from which they say the monkey came! Did 
man come that way? No man with any reason can believe 
he did so come. He came suddenly in the Champlain sub- 
epoch "apparently without progenitors" as did the monkey in 
Miocene times. (Chamberlin & Salisbury, vol. 3). There is 
no more proof that man descended from the prosimiae than that 
he came from the planet Mars. There is an entire absence of 
proof in both cases. 

Clodd, p. 22, says Eocene and Miocene rocks tell us noth- 
ing of man and "Pliocene rocks tell us less." On p. 28, this 
author says, "We have as yet met with no tracks of the miss- 
ing links or even of man's existence during late Tertiary times." 

Wright's Origin and Antiquity of Man, p. 342, says, "Not 
a trace of unquestionable evidence of man's existence has been 
found in strata admittedly older than the Pleistocene." 

The National Geographic Magazine for February, 1916, 
has an article on the first appearance of man on the earth by 
Theodore Roosevelt wherein he says, "The only records of 
early man yet discovered are in Europe." This leaves out 
Asia, Africa and America, which is likely correct. Then he 
adds this, "There is no evidence that ancestors of man, at 
close of Pliocene, existed in Europe." Then we have no 
evidence of man anywhere back of the Ice Age, according to 
Roosevelt. I elsewhere show that even the Champlain had 
almost gone before man appeared. 

De Vries, the great German scientist, declares that natural 
selection never produced distinct species and he suggests "mu- 
tation" rather than evolution as the law of new life-species. 
By this he means that man as well as all species came with a 



204 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

jump. Mutation is but another name for special creation by 
the Creator's use of some unknown law. Previous life forms 
may have been used in the process, but it is not Darwin's 
evolution by the preservation by natural selection of minute 
variations. 

Nowhere in this book do I attempt to say how God created 
man or how he brings a new species into being, for I do not 
know. But I do present evidence in superabundance that 
man did not come by Darwin's evolution, and the statement by 
De Vries is just one more witness against it. 

Therefore, we must decide that man is not an evolution, 
but that he came into being suddenly, a complete man, ap- 
parently without progenitors. He came as Genesis tells us 
and not as evolutionists say. 

But man's origin is not the only place where evolution 
falls down as an hypothesis to explain the mysteries of life, as 
I point out in the next two chapters. 



CHAPTER XXII. 

WHERE EVOLUTION FAILS COMPLETELY. 

It is almost an absolute necessity that science adopt certain 
hypotheses to account for the things that we find around us. 
An hypothesis is an expedient — the best that can be devised, 
but the theory or hypothesis may later be found to be erroneous. 
Yet it is all right to theorize. For this reason, I find no fault 
with those persons who have faith in the evolutionary hypo- 
thetic theory. 

Animal and plant life is found to vary from age to age and 
from one country or climate to another. Evolution is based 
on the hypothesis that both animals and plants must contend 
for their existence} with the elements and with enemies as well 
as among themselves as rivals. If herds of cattle are placed 
on a plain or river valley to shift for themselves, the weaker 
will perish and the stronger survive. The males with the 
larger and sharper horns will supercede the inferior. The 
swift will evade the wild beast that pursues them. If the 
cattle must climb the mountains for sustenance, the agile will 
survive. All this tends to advance them along certain lines. 
It is nature's effort for the "survival of the fittest." If it be 
birds or butterflies, those which are most like their surroundings 
will escape the eye of the rapacious destroyer that is seeking 
to devour them. In the far north, among the snow banks, 
birds and animals are apt to be white. Butterflies that live on 
certain flowers have an appearance similar to these flowers. 
Certain insects look almost exactly like the leaves or twigs of 
the trees on which they feed, and frogs are in color like the 
trees they climb. 

Some of this looks reasonable, and I find no fault with the 
one who accepts this as a basis for a theory of evolution. I 



206 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

accept it myself, as far as it is sensible or reasonable to do so. 
Some men make this theory supreme. They try to make "sur- 
vival of the fittest" and "natural selection" do such wonderful 
feats that God is no longer needed. Nature is their god, and 
natural selection is the law by which this blind nature brought 
about all the diverse things we see about us in life. 

That law of nature which brings new life also brings it at 
the opportune time. This must call for design. Was it sur- 
vival of the fittest that brought the sheep, dog, goat and ox 
just when man needed them? They had no existence until 
man came after the Ice Age. God designed it so, "and it was 
so." He designed the time of their arrival as well as the 
kind of life they should present. Even if there is a small 
amount of truth in this theory of natural selection, it is ab- 
surd to attempt to make it account for all of what we see 
around us. Our limited observation of the workings of this 
theory does not at all strengthen our faith in its efficacy. 
When man takes charge of a flock of sheep or a herd of cat- 
tle, he can, without doubt, by selection, greatly benefit, enlarge 
and improve the breed. The same is true of plants, trees and 
vegetables. 

But this is not "natural" selection. It is artificial. Turn 
out the best bred herd of fine stock and in a few years it de- 
teriorates until you have nothing but the meanest breeds of wild 
brutes. The most intelligent breed of dogs, if allowed to run 
wild, will revert to the jackal, says Prof. George Rawlinson. 
I could quote pages of proof to show that untouched races 
generally become degraded and grow more barbarous. In 
other chapters I point to the fact that in all geological ages 
the best and largest of any type of animal came first and the 
poorer followed. The largest elephant was the first one and 
the smallest lives now. The most beautiful pansy or rose that 



WHERE EVOLUTION FAILS 207 

grows in our gardens, if neglected, will in a few years revert 
to the insignificant wild variety. A lady, showing a most 
magnificent rose, said, "See what God made." "No," re- 
plied a young lady, just from college, "man made that by 
selection and cultivation, God made the miserable, little, wild 
rose." The first lady was more nearly correct. God's first 
rose was certainly the most beautiful of all — more beautiful 
than any man has yet succeeded in obtaining by cultivation. 
Mendel's law shows us that God's first rose had all the varieties 
in perfection, and in the wild deteriorated rose, these qualities 
are in abeyance. Cultivation merely restores what God had 
put there at first. Mendel's law when applied never adds any 
thing new. It merely approaches, in a meagre degree, God's 
original. 

Tarr's geology, p. 434, says, "At first mammals were large 
species, but as time progressed, the size diminished." Now, 
when man steps in he, by cultivation, can restore or bring to 
the surface features of beauty or worth that have become hid- 
den by "natural selection," after the animal left the Creator's 
hand. 

The first men that ever lived were the brainiest. This is 
shown in the fact that Paleolithic barbarian skulls had as great 
brain capacity as the modern European has now. The bar- 
barian of that ancient day was a better type than the Bushman, 
Negrito and the Fuegian outcast of today. 

But this is not the most discouraging feature of this law of 
natural selection. There are myriads of things that this law 
will not account for at all. We are compelled to admit that 
some undiscovered law must account for these things. Let 
me note a few examples: 

The little chick, a half hour old, will flatten itself on the 
ground or crawl under a weed or leaf at the danger call of its 



208 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

mother, when she observes a hawk overhead. Did the little 
chick obtain this habit or trait by natural selection? Was it 
the chick that picked up this precocious habit earliest that 
survived? Oh no, evolution simply falls down. Some shep- 
herd dogs have beautiful yellow spots, one exactly above each 
eye. These are of no use whatever. How could natural 
selection or survival of the fittest produce these, or give the 
dog, or any other animal, two eyes placed precisely equidistant 
from the nose, mouth or ears? Natural selection absolutely 
falls down in the face of such wonders of nature's creations. 

When the late Prof. Agassiz died he had partially ready 
for publication an article pointing to the fact that the geological 
catastrophes separating certain eras were so destructive of life 
as to necessitate as many creative interventions for the living 
species as there had been catastrophes. It cannot be denied 
but that here evolution breaks down. I refer to this elsewhere. 

When man appeared he was a perfectly developed man. 
No link connecting him with any prior animal has ever been 
found. The evolutionist Morris, p. 69, says, of man's advent, 
"Both physically and mentally evolution seemed to take an 
enormous leap." In fact it was not evolution at all, only 
another example where evolution, as a theory collapses. 

Animals have instinct. It is impossible to account for this 
under any law of evolution. Instinct in any animal or bird 
is always the same. If man is an evolution from the animal, 
what became of the instinct he should have inherited? Bah! 
Instinct is implanted in the bird or beast by the Creator. It 
is never acquired. It is a special creation or it comes by some 
unknown natural law. The first bird or beast of its kind had 
instinct in its fullest measure. If instinct comes that way, why 
not say that the color of the bird and flower of every variety 
and species comes the same way? 



WHERE EVOLUTION FAILS 209 

Survival of the fittest is a great thing with the evolutionist. 
But where did that quality called "fittest" come from? Of 
two hares, each a mile from the nearest burrow, pursued by 
the greyhound, the fleetest will escape. Now, grant that it 
can transmit that fleetness to it progeny, we are bound to ask 
where this hare got that fleetness. Did one of its parents have 
it, and so on back? Was it a sudden gift? If so, from whom? 
If from the Creator, what difference between mutation and 
creation? If not from God, then, O then, evolution falls down 
flat I 

How can any theory of evolution account for the formation 
of the eye or the lungs in the unborn before either light or air 
has ever entered these organs? Evolution stands silent as to 
all such things. 

The male of many species of bird is very beautiful while the 
female is often sombre. The evolutionist tells us this beauty in 
the feathers of the male is due to natural selection on the part 
of the female. It may be so, but has the male no sense of 
beauty? The wild flower is often most beautiful, does 
sexual choice account for this? You know it is absurd. Why 
not say that God's unknown law of special design will ac- 
count for all these things, and dispense with evolution? When 
man is given the species to work on he can apply Mendel's 
law along with artificial selection, and cause great changes. 
Possibly the Creator not only superintends the workings of 
Mendel's law and natural selection but even furnishes the 
species in a complete form by some law unknown to us. 

New and unknown organs appear suddenly and evolution 
fails to account for them. Geoffrey Smith, p. 94, speaking of 
the terrestrial vertebrate, says, "The pentadactyle limb appears 
suddenly, to all appearances from nowhere * * * * there 
is no shadow of a suggestion, either in living forms or in the 



210 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

geological records, of the steps by which this fundamental 
acquisition was arrived at." Only another case where evolu- 
tion fails. 

There are parts of animal bodies that must come all at once 
to be of any use, like holes in certain bones for muscles to go 
through. How could gradual selection make a hole through 
a bone? It shows design, and the law of evolution had no 
more to do with such a thing than the law of cube root, or 
the law regulating the speed of automobiles. 

Under artificial selection, where Mendel's law is applied, 
by man, the evolution will go only so far, and then it is all over. 
Abbott, the biologist, on p. 220, of his Biology, says, "But 
curiously enough, further selection will not increase that per- 
centage and moreover constant selection is necessary in order 
that this maximum be maintained." Evolution by artificial 
selection never created anything, it only brings out what is al- 
ready there. Natural selection does not even do that. 

Prof. Abbott, on p. 131, says that no life has ever come 
except from preceding life. Whence then did the first life 
come? Evolution falls down completely at that point. If 
we must appeal to an unknown law or to God for first life, 
why not hypothecate that unknown law as the originator of 
each distinct species? Even Darwin says that evolution could 
not furnish the first life. 

Many plants and animals like live oak, Scotch fir, and the 
mollusk have persisted for millions of years without the slight- 
est change. Why did not survival of the fittest bring out larg- 
er and better forms? May it not be that this is true of all 
forms of life, the next somewhat similar species being simply 
a new life form absolutely independent of the former? 

It has never been shown that one species developed from 
another. Dr. Ethridge of the British Museum, one of Eng- 



WHERE EVOLUTION FAILS 211 

land's famous fossil experts, says, "In all this great museum 
there is not a particle of evidence of transmutations of species." 

Prof. Crawley, in the London News, has an interesting ar- 
ticle on animal mimicry, quoted in the Jan. 1914 Current 
Opinion. He says that the fact that birds, butterflies, frogs 
and certain insects have the color or shape of their sur- 
roundings is not at all due to survival or selection of the minute 
changes that by accident make them resemble their surround- 
ings. He says, "The idea that new species real or imitative, 
can be produced by a gradual culmination of tiny changes 
is an exploded idea." He says that some law of sunlight un- 
known to us, affects the plant and the butterfly or frog alike. 
He says, "A frog placed in a dark room turns black, place 
it on the lawn and it turns green. The Chameleon changes 
color with its surroundings. It is an automatic result of the 
action of light on the retina. Blind the creature and no 
change whatever takes place in it." 

Some birds in the far north are pure white in winter, but 
are green in the summer. To say that both changes come 
about by natural selection or survival of the fittest is claiming 
too much. It is the result in both cases of creative design, and 
very likely the first bird, butterfly or frog, of his race, had this 
power of mimicry and that he was so created. Evolution alone 
is inadequate to explain these wonders. 

I have noticed that in parlors the colors in the carpets 
harmonize with the colors in the paper on the wall, and even 
the furniture matches the wood-work of the room. He who 
sets up the claim that the wall-paper evolved colors by nat- 
ural selection or survival of the fittest so as to resemble the 
carpets, or that the furniture gradually took on the appearance 
of the wood-finishings — well we would call that man a fool. 
But when the same man sets up a similar claim as to the color 



212 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

of the bird, the animal or the butterfly, shall we call him wise? 
If it is perfectly plain that an architect designed the color- 
blendings in the parlor, how much more apparent is it that 
the hand of the great Designer is seen in the harmony of colors 
in nature! "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God." 

Prof. E. L. Eaton, the great chautauqua lecturer, in his Our 
Spiritual Life, names six places where evolution falls down, 
or where there are unaccountable missing links : ( 1 ) Origin of 
matter. (2) Origin of light. (3) Origin of motion. 
(4) Origin of life. (5) Origin of species. (6) Origin of 
the human soul. He might have added many score of other 
missing links, the origin of instinct, for instance. 

The bringing out of new varieties of domestic fowls or cattle 
or of grain or fruit by the application of Mendel's law leads 
us to one of two conclusions : 

( 1 ) All the features brought out in the new varieties were 
folded up in the first fruit, animal or fowl of this kind, or the 
first cell; or 

(2) The Creator, who by mandate made the first animal 
or cell, also from time to time adds new features by the same 
creative mandate. 

Let me ask, now which of these is the harder to believe? 
Any and all producers of new varieties of cattle know that 
they do not have the power to add new forms or new colors. 
All they can do is to bring out what is already hidden there. 
We must fall back on the Creative Will. Now as to man, 
which is the more difficult to believe, that all the powers of 
body, mind and spirit in man were in the original cell, or worm., 
or to accept it that at the proper time the Creator added new 
things? I, for myself, see less difficulty in the latter. Even 
Wallace, almost as noted as Darwin as an evolutionist, said 



WHERE EVOLUTION FAILS 



213 



he "was inclined to look upon the intellect of man as a gift 
from the realm of the spirits." Why stop at the intellect? 

The evolutionist depends more upon the "evolution of the 
modern horse" to furnish the cap sheaf in the way of argu- 
ment than any other illustration he can scrape up. Here are 
the hoofs of the hippus family as they are usually given: 






fi 



OROHIPPUS 



MESCHIPPU8 



PROTOHIPPUS 



THe MORS! 



Prof. Haeckel said the Orohippus lived 300,000,000 years 
ago, and consequently the Eohippus, about the size of a wood- 
chuck, lived still more remotely, in the early Eocene epoch. 
Some over-diligent evolutionists claim to have found as many 
as ten links but geologists generally refuse to count so many. 
If we admit four progenitors of the horse, there would be ac- 
cording to Haeckel gaps of about 75,000,000 years separating 
these links. Prof, Townsend, says these animals are no more 
related to the horse than they are to the jack-rabbit or the 
grasshopper. He says, "In each instance these differently toed 
animals lived their geological periods and then forever dis- 
appeared, having had neither ancestors nor descendants," ex- 
cept of their own species and kind On p. 21 he says, "They 
were simply that sort of animals and no more pointed to the 



214 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

horse than to the elephant or the cow." The real links connect- 
ing these little animals with the horse are never found. When 
the real horse first appeared he was a horse and he has re- 
mained a horse, and all the breeding that can be put into him 
for a million years will leave him nothing but a horse. So 
many links in this hippus illustration are missing that it is only 
another illustration where evolution fails to make good. 

Design is a factor that a thousand times outweighs survival 
of the fittest or natural selection. I have shown that domestic 
animals evolve better bodies under the guidance of man. It 
takes design, thought, outside supervision to accomplish any- 
thing among the animals we observe. 

It may be replied that natural selection, as a law in God's 
hands, accomplishes the same things in nature for wild ani- 
mals, plants and birds, that man's superintendence does for do- 
mestic animals and fowls. But I have shown that this law 
cannot account at all for a host of things. We are compelled 
not only to admit creative design, which is the same as ac- 
knowledging God's hand, but we are also driven to admit 
that the law God used was not natural selection or survival of 
the fittest. If then we are compelled to abandon evolution in 
accounting for many things, why not abandon it in all cases 
and fall back on God and his unknown law by which these 
things came about? If the scientist admits that some things 
cannot be accounted for by evolution, and is seeking an undis- 
covered law under which to group these things, he must not 
find fault with me if I say that this undiscovered law will the 
better account for all these other things which are now by him 
placed under his law of evolution! 



CHAPTER XXIII. 

THE EVOLUTION OF THE UNBORN. 

One of the curious things announced by advocates of evolu- 
tion is that the unborn animal, in its early prenatal stages, 
undergoes changes that reflect the various forms of the evolution 
of the animal life that preceded it back, not only to the 
fish, but even to the worm. I shall take Geoffrey Smith's 
definition found on p. 58 of his Work: "The doctrine that 
animals, in the course of their development, pass through or 
recapitulate the stages of their ancestral history, in other words 
that animals in their development climb up their own genealog- 
ical trees." I shall also take from Morris, p. 1 7, who states 
the theory as to man thus: "The body of man passes in his 
early development through a series of stages, in each of which 
it resembles the nature or the embryo state of certain animals 
lower in the stage of existence. * * * * The most significant 
of these is that in which the embryo is closely assimilated to 
the fish, by the possession of gill-slits." 

Now, if this be true, it would go a long way toward con- 
vincing us that man's ancestors went through all these stages 
during the long ages of preceding geological life. But is it 
true? 

We well know that the embryonic human must grow and 
develop from an insignificant start and that several months are 
consumed in the process. But that the embryo at any stage is 
the photo of some geological ancestor is altogether an unproven 
theory. It is an assumption, and the facts adduced to support 
it are twisted and distorted to a degree that it would be the 
height of idiocy to accept them as evidence. 

The truth is, the embryo has organs that the child, when 
born, will not need and these close up or become atrophied, or 



216 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

there may be folds in the embryo, useless at first, but which 
later develop into organs of use. That I am correct in this 
is supported by the Enc. Br'u, vol. 2, p. 877, "This form ot 
atrophy is likewise well exemplified in the case of those organs 
and structures of the body which subserve important ends 
during foetal life, but which, ceasing to be necessary after 
birth, undergo a sort of natural atrophy such as the thymus 
gland and certain vessels concerned in the foetal circulation." 
Morris himself, on the same page, as above, says, 4< These 
slits are utilized in the developing embryo.*' The Enc. Bri. } 
vol. 1 0, p. 34, says, "It is almost impossible to prove that any 
structure, however rudimentary, is useless." 

The fish itself has these slits in its unborn state, located 
aside from the true gills. If these slits in the neck of the 
human embryo point back to the ancestral fish, what do the 
slits in the fish embryol point back to? 

They also tell us that the human embryo has a diminutive 
tail which points back to the ancestral animal which had a tail. 
The very lowest form of vertebrate life in its embryonic stage 
has this diminutive tail, but it had no ancestor with a tail. 
Its tail, then, must point forward to the coming tail. These 
biological evolutionists never tell us that the unborn gorilla, 
at some stages, looks much more human than does the mature 
gorilla. Then the gorilla descended from man did it? The 
entire theory is a mass of falsehoods and contradictions. 

Geoffrey Smith, p. 58 says, "That the development stages 
represent actual adult animals, the ancestors of the particular 
species in question, is open to very grave objections." 

The Enc. Bri. article, quoted farther on, sums the matter up 
this way: "The view, then, that embryonic development is es- 
sentially a recapitulation of ancestral history must be given up." 

In connection with this embryonic nonsense, is a theory equal- 



EVOLUTION OF THE UNBORN 217 

ly absurd. That is that in man's body are certain fossil or- 
gans which are of no use except r to point back to a time when 
some one or more of his ancestors had such organs and had 
need of them. An example of this is the appendix. It is true 
that in man's body are some such aborted organs, but why 
and how they are there is an entirely different question. Some 
of them may have a purpose or use in the adult body unknown 
to us, or, more likely, some of these organs were of real 
service in the prenatal state. My quotations above show this to 
be true of the gill slits in the embryo. Again, the conditions of 
human life in former times may have made some of these organs 
useful either in the embryo or adult. But the thing that more 
than any thing else mystifies the whole matter, rendering the 
arguments of the advocates of the evolutionary theory unten- 
able, is the fact that some of these aborted organs could not 
possibly point back to a useful period, the aborted teats on the 
male breast for instance. There are a whole lot of things we 
do not understand, and to try to make evolution account for 
them is simply ridiculous. 

The writer on the subject of "Embryology" in the Enc. BrL 
argues the question of such aborted organs as the appendix as 
follows: "When we come to look for the facts upon which it 
is based, we find that they are nonexistant, for the ancestors of 
all living animals are dead, and we have no means of knowing 
what they were like. It is true there are fossil remains of 
animals which have lived, but they are so imperfect as to be 
practically useless for the present requirements. Morever, if 
they were perfectly preserved, there would be no evidence to 
show that they were ancestors of the animals now livteg. 
They might have been animals which have become extinct 
and left no descendants. Thus the explanation ordinarily given 
of the embryonic structures referred to is purely a deduction 



218 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

from the evolution theory," and farther on he says, "If it be 
admitted that all so called vestigal structures had once the 
same functions as the homogeneous structures when fully de- 
veloped in other animals, it becomes necessary to admit that 
male mammals must once have had fully developed mammary 
glands and suckled the young." When this feature is broach- 
ed the advocate of this theory closes up like a clam. 

Prof. A. Wilford Hall, in The Problem of Human Life, 
so tersely refutes these embryonic and aborted theories, that I 
must quote him. On p. 369, "These two embryonic features 
(gill slits and human tail), and these alone, constitute the 
entire stock in trade" of the advocates of the backward glance 
of the embryo. On p. 371, "The fish embryo, exactly like 
that of the human embryo, has the same throat marks or so 
called gill openings, and in the same position." On p. 372, 
"The conclusion, then, is irresistible that these neck folds have 
nothing whatever to do with gills." Oh p. 374, "Now as re- 
gards the "little tail of man," about which Prof. Haeckel and 
Mr. Darwin have so much to say, and which is regarded by 
all evolutionists as such a powerful proof of man's descent from 
tailed ancestors, I wish to remark that a more manifest and 
inexcusable misconception was never harbored by men." Then 
the author goes on to state that the spine in all vertebrates de- 
velops first and the end protrudes until the fleshy portion de- 
velops to cover it. The fish, which according to evolution, did 
not have a tailed animal for am ancestor, also has this embry- 
onic tail. Then the author sums up his expose of this "gill 
and tail" theory in these words on page 375. "The plain 
truth is, evolutionists are so anxious to rake up some sort of 
evidence favorable to the theory of descent, that they seem to 
lose their reasoning powers in their overweening desire to prove 
their blood relationship to the brute creation." 



CHAPTER XXIV, 

DO GENESIS AND SCIENCE DISAGREE ? 

There are two classes of men who are seriously in error: 
Those who reject Genesis because it does not agree with their 
wrong conclusion as to what science is, and those who reject 
science because it does not agree with their interpretation of 
Genesis. 

What does the first chapter of Genesis say as to science, 
and what are the teachings of scientists on the same subject? 
If the science of Genesis is reliable you must not expect it to 
agree with the hypotheses of Tom, Dick and Harry, for one 
of these gentlemen tells us the universe came about by the 
nebular hypothesis, another by the planetesimal and still an- 
other by the meteoritic. 

Formerly scientists told us the earth was flat and that the 
sun made daily trips around it, and they held numerous other 
crude theories, and it may be found in the future that many 
of today's "established" facts are just as crude. Critics tell 
us the Bible must agree with each and all of these things as 
they are severally promulgated and Bible students as often in- 
terpret the Scriptures as sustaining this or that theory of science 
which later is found to be false, and thus Genesis has been 
periodically "overthrown." 

Genesis says: "Originally God made the universe." Well, 
some being or some intelligent power made it, for it is against 
all reason to suspect that the universe made itself. Nothing 
that we know of ever came about that way. In Gen. 1:1 it is 
said God created the heavens and the earth, but where the do- 
ings of the six days are referred to (Ex. 20:1 1) a different 
Hebrew word is used which means not to create but "to 
shape." Genesis then tells us that the Creator proceeded, not 



220 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

to create the earth, sun, moon and stars, for their creation is 
implied in the first verse, but to fit up the earth for the habita- 
tion of man. He did this through six "days," as we use it in 
saying, "in that day." The critic who declares that Genesis 
means days of 24 hours, is setting up a man of straw for the 
purpose of knocking the same thing down. 

The reasonable, sensible man, who reads Genesis as it is, 
does not get that meaning out of the word "day." The be- 
ginning of the "first day" found the earth without its present 
form and in total darkness because of the vapors that envelop- 
ed it. The vast preparation implied in giving form to the 
earth and enough light to distinguish day from night would re- 
quire long ages, possibly. 

The great changes in the temperature of the earth and the 
separation of the vapor into clouds above and water beneath 
infer a long time for the "second day." 

Especially plain is the description of the "third day" where- 
in the waters are gathered into oceans, and grass, herbs and 
trees grow to maturity so as to bear fruit. The critic who 
reads 24 hours into God's "third day" does it purposely to 
discredit Genesis. 

Then there is the description of the "fourth day," so violent- 
ly attacked by Bible critics — the making of the sun, moon and 
stars to give light to the earth. But no such interpretation, as 
these critics give the 1 6th verse of this first chapter of Genesis, 
can ever be given by one who rightly reads the first verse 
wherein it is plainly stated that the sun, moon and stars were 
included in the creation of the universe of which they are a 
necessary part. It is obvious, therefore, that the "making" of 
these bodies in the 1 6th verse means their coming into their 
right relations to the earth as light givers ; the vapors above the 



DO GENESIS AND SCIENCE DISAGREE? 221 

errth just then having enough breaks to permit the direct 
rays of the sun, moon and stars to reach the earth. 

The vivid description of the coming into being of the sea 
monsters, the birds, their multiplying and filling the land and 
waters can not possibly mean a 24 hour day, for God's "fifth 
day." 

Likewise the "sixth day," wherein the domestic animals and 
other modern life forms lived and from year to year produced 
"after their kind," was intended to imply many, many days. 

Now all this agrees with the now known facts of geology. 
How wonderful it is that a writer, more than 3,000 years be- 
fore anyone had ever dreamed of what geology would teach, 
could give such a vivid description of God's steps in fitting 
the earth for man's habitation. If the Bible could give no 
other proof of divine inspiration than this first chapter of Gen- 
esis, it is enough. I consider Moses' description of the geo- 
logical changes the earth went through, and the appearance of 
life in geologic periods as the most wonderful thing in all litera- 
ture, either sacred or profane. 

Let the man who says Genesis does not agree with science 
go hide himself. He is too infinitesimally small and ignorant 
to be called a man. Possibly he is the long looked for "miss- 
ing link." 

But scarcely has this species of Bible critic departed when 
another takes his place — this time the "Higher Critic." He 
says : "Oh, yes these things in Genesis are truly wonderful, 
but Moses never wrote them. Oh, no, they were written at 
least 1 ,000 years after Moses and were palmed off on the 
unsuspecting Jew as genuine. It is very hard to believe. 
Can it be so? 



CHAPTER XXV. 

THE HIGHER CRITICS, SATAN'S EMPLOYES. 

If we can call Bible investigation criticism, then there is a 
kind of criticism that is to be commended, but such a vast 
majority of those who come under the name "higher critics" 
are such because they want to destroy the Bible as an authority 
from God, that this term "higher critics" has come generally to 
mean enemies of the Bible and in that sense I shall use it. 
If I do an injustice to a few good men they can blame them- 
selves for keeping such miserable company. With scarcely an 
exception, the higher critics are employed by Satan to mis- 
represent the Bible. Hon. Harold Wiener, a noted Hebrew 
scholar, of London, the greatest living opponent of higher 
criticism, says of them (Bibliotheca Sacra, Oct. 1912), 
"While there are a few honorable men among the higher 
critics, the majority of them are men who are utterly un- 
scrupulous where the documentary theory is concerned, and 
do not hesitate to adopt methods that would not be tolerated 
in any honorable profession." 

The higher critics are essentially fault finders, hunting up 
and down through the Bible to find errors and, in ninety-nine 
cases out of every hundred, they magnify what is not an error 
into one. Some of them may criticise the Bible for good and 
laudable purposes but I do not find that to be their motive in 
any of their books that I have read. They tell us higher 
criticism will place the Bible on a firmer foundation. But 
how claiming that the Bible is full of errors, forgeries and 
misrepresentations will give it a better standing is something that 
I am not able to see. 

A lower critic is one who looks back of the words as 
translated to see if we have the proper meaning in our version 



THE HIGHER CRITICS 223 

of the Bible, andl that sort of criticism is all right. The only 
sense in which higher criticism could ever be commended is 
when it is used to trace back the books of the Bible to their 
original sources. For example: Where did Moses get the 
materials from which he wrote Genesis? 

About 150 years ago, a French free-thinker, who lived a 
profligate life, happened to be looking through his neighbor's 
Bible when he discovered that the first chapter of Genesis and 
the first four verses of the second chapter, when referring to 
the Deity, use the word God throughout (see Revised version), 
then the words Jehovah God are used until the end of the 
third chapter, except in indirect discourse where the serpent 
uses the word God. Beginning with the fourth chapter the 
word Jehovah is used and thereafter sometimes one word is 
used and sometimes another. Astruc told some critic what he 
had found and at once an hypothesis was forthcoming. 

If one of these critics had ever attended prayer meeting he 
would have observed that any minister and even a layman in 
offering prayer will use a half dozen names for the Deity and 
no one will say that the man so praying had made up his 
prayer by clippings from so many prayer books. We are 
supposing now that the critic would suspect that the one lead- 
ing in prayer had a good and lawful reason for using first one 
name and then another, without stopping to explain why. Now 
I suspect Moses did the same thing, but these wise higher 
critics do not look at it that way and so here is their hypothesis : 

After the Children of Israel, under judges and kings, had 
grown into a nation and later had divided into a northern 
kingdom called Israel, or Ephraim, and a southern kingdom 
known as Judah, it was discovered they had no sacred or his- 
torical books worthy the name. So an Ephraimite wrote a 
book composed of myths and traditions using the word Elohim, 



224 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

translated God, whenever he referred to the Deity. This book 
the higher critics call E. About the same time (probably 1 50 
years after Solomon's death) a man of Judah, not to be out- 
done, wrote a book much like the former but differing consider- 
ably especially in his account of Creation, the Flood, Joseph, 
etc. He used the word JH'VH, or Jehovah, whenever he 
spoke of God and so the critics call this the J book. Some 
years later, after the northern kingdom was carried into captiv- 
ity, some fellow?, the critics call him a "redactor," or editor, 
combined the E and J books into one garbled account called 
the J E writings. In Josiah's reign (2 Kings 22:8) the critics 
tell us some Jew forged our present book of Deuteronomy and 
passed it out as a work of Moses. The critics call this the D 
book. Then some priests, before Ezra's time, combined all 
these, adding some things favorable to the priests, into another 
collection known as the P writings. Lastly, Ezra and the 
Great Synagogue, which continued after Ezra's death, re- 
wrote and revised all the preceding into our present Pentateuch, 
also modifying all the other Old Testament books, including 
Joshua. These priests, including Ezra, then palmed the first 
five of their books off as the "Book of Moses" and the other 
one as the "Book of Joshua" and strange to say, the Jews 
swallowed the entire forgery as genuine and never a murmur 
was heard about it until recently, almost 2,500 years after the 
forgeries were committed. What a chance the Samaritans had 
to expose the fraudulently constructed Pentateuch, if Ezra 
and the priests really manufactured the so-called "Book of 
Moses." But instead of that they adopted it themselves! 
That is what the critics say. The coterie of men who are 
capable of believing that are about the right caliber to set up 
this new hypothesis of the late origin of the Pentateuch. 
If you ask whether there is any historic intimation that any 



THE HIGHER CRITICS 225 

such books as the E, J, JE, P, etc. ever existed, I reply that 
the critics do not claim to know that any such writings ever 
actually existed but that it is the only way to account for our 
present Pentateuch. The higher critics do not stop with this 
hypothesis but they proceed to show that the entire Old Testa- 
ment is made up of myths, folk-lore, exaggerations, false his- 
tory and inconsistencies. That these critics resort to all this 
trouble to tear the Bible to pieces grows out of the fact that 
they are evolutionists and hold that the Bible is an evolution, 
a purely natural evolutionary growth, not of God in any sense, 
but the product of men, and that Moses in his early day could 
not therefore have written the Pentateuch because it is too much 
advanced for his day. There would be the same reason exact- 
ly for saying that the Declaration of Independence was not 
written in Colonial times but after the Civil war because it 
said "All men are created equal." 

These critics then proceed, on the Astruc theory of the dif- 
ferent words for Deity, to divide the Pentateuch and other 
Bible books into the original documents, and a miserable mess 
they make of it. No two of them agree as to how it should be 
done and, except as to the first two or three chapters of Gen- 
esis, they scarcely find a verse that has any sense when pulled 
out of its present connection with verses using one of the other 
designations for God. 

The names for Deity are only one of the characteristics, so 
the critics tell us, that distinguish a J or some other section 
from one of the others. So they are able to divide up a verse 
or a chapter even if it does not have a name of God in it. On 
p. 161, Kent gives a sample of three late writings from which 
the priests of about Erza's day constructed the story of the 
burning bush which everybody for more than 3,000 years 



226 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

ascribed to Moses. Anyone can take a chapter from any book 
and make up an equally foolish hypothesis. 

Take the story of Joseph, for instance. The redactor, near- 
ly 1,000 years after Moses, is supposed to have before him 
E, J and P manuscripts, all telling something about Joseph 
but no two alike. Moses had died according to these critics, 
long before any of these E, J or P manuscripts had been 
written, they being nothing but folk-tales reduced to writing 
some 600 years later than Moses. The redactor with 
a pair scissors and a pot of paste cuts and pastes first from one 
manuscript then from another and ends up, poor fool, with a 
disagreeing jumble, as the critics see it. Yet they tell us this 
redactor knew the past history of Israel, Egypt, Babylon, As- 
syria, Arabia, Phoenicia, the Edomites and Hittites for 1,500 
years back of his day. He was the smartest historian that 
ever lived and yet such a fool that he put in Ishmaelites, Mid- 
ianites and Medanites merely because these words were in 
the different writings he was clipping from, without knowing 
what they meant! He did not have sense enough to rewrite 
the story from the materials he had and make it consistent with 
itself. Bah, the biggest fool is the critic that manufactured 
such a senseless theory. We can rest assured that Moses re- 
ceived this account from his forefathers and he and the peo- 
ple of his day understood what Ishmaelites, Midianites and 
Medanites meant, as used, whether we do or not. 

Prof. Paul Hiaupt, as chief editor, thought to make a Poly- 
chrome Bible displaying the J, E, P, etc. sources for the Old 
Testament. The first four verses of the 6th chapter of Josh- 
ua were printed in six colors, there being twelve fragments. 
There was not a particle of sense in it. It is no wonder some 
fool books of this critical sort are never completed! 

To uphold their preposterous theories these higher critics 



THE HIGHER CRITICS 227 

have some tremendous problems on their hands. For instance, 
if these books of Moses were forged 1 ,000 years after Moses' 
time and passed out as his, how comes it these Jews accepted 
them as genuine, even the Samaritans, who had no deal- 
ings with the Jews, also accepting and adopting the book of 
Moses. Even Christ and his Apostles never suspected that 
the Pentateuch was a forgery. 

All through the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and 
Deuteronomy come such words as these "and Moses wrote." 
Ex. 24:4; Num. 33:2. If Moses did not do what these 
books say, over and over again, somebody has lied about it, 
and that lie is made a part of our Bible. Do you believe that? 
These higher critics must assume that the priests including 
Ezra who, they say, finally made up these books, put this un- 
truth into them when saying that Moses wrote them. In other 
words, if we believe the higher critics we must believe the men 
who made up the Pentateuch were liars and forgers. I should 
much prefer to believe that it is the critics who are guilty of 
misrepresentation. 

Then, too, there are other Bible books older than the time 
when the critics tell us the Pentateuch was forged, like the 
books of Hosea and Amos, which refer to Moses as the 
author of parts of the Pentateuch. How could Hosea refer 
a dozen times to the Pentateuch if it were not yet in existence? 
Then we find references to the "Book of Moses," "the law," 
and many other Pentateuchal personages and incidents in 
Joshua, Samuel and the Psalms, older than the time of the 
fraud, and all through the New Testament Gospels Jesus re- 
fers, time and time again, to "Book of Moses" (Mark 12:- 
26). Did Jesus know these books were late forgeries and was 
he helping pass them along, or was he ignorant of all this? 
I rather think Jesus would have said of these things: 'Tf it 



228 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

were not so, I would have told you." Hjow will the critics 
evade such an endorsement of Moses' authorship of the Pen- 
tateuch as Jesus gives in John 5:46? "For if ye believe 
Moses, ye would believe me; for he wrote; of me." 

This is but a small part of the difficulties these critics get 
themselves into. Genesis and the balance of the Pentateuch 
have references beyond number to geography, topography^, an- 
cient history of Egypt, Palestine and other countries that the 
writers of 500 B. C. probably knew nothing about, 
peoples and tribes then entirely disappeared, words and cus- 
toms suitable to Mosaic times but unsuited to post-exilic times. 
For names of wood and cloth in the Tabernacle, Moses used 
Egyptian or desert names and not Babylonian words, as would 
have been if written late. There are ten thousand things to 
prove that the Pentateuch was composed by Moses and not 
one valid argument to show that it was the work of late writers. 
Besides this, archaeology in many cases has bobbed up to 
knock the higher critics on the head. Even the old hen cackles 
to disprove the theory of a late date of the Pentateuch, for 
she was one of the "clean birds" in post-exilic times and would 
then have been included, but was not known in Moses' time. 

Look at the "cloud of witnesses:" Samuel, David, Ho- 
sea, Ezra, Daniel, Nehemiah, more than 100 Old Testament 
quotations, as to the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch; Mat- 
thew, John, Peter, Paul and even Jesus in the New Testament, 
to say nothing of the martyrs, reformers, evangelists reaching 
down to our day, who all accepted the statement of Deut. 1 : 1 
that Moses himself had all to do with that book as well as 
the other books ascribed to him. And who are these higher 
critics? Generally atheists, skeptics, agnostics, falsifiers, liars 
and occasionally something that looks like a grain of wheat! 
Not a single contention ever made by any critic against the 



THE HIGHER CRITICS 229 

truthfulness of the Bible has been substantiated by archaeology, 
so far as I have been able to find, while in a great many cases 
the critics have been compelled to modify or altogether aban- 
don their contention. 

These higher critics want us to believe that all the great 
scholars have gone over to their view of the Bible. It is not 
so. There are scores of the best scholars in the world who 
reject the critical view to where there is one who adopts it. 
It is true that that one, like the big frog in the mill-pond, may 
be making more noise than a score of abler men, but noise does 
not count. Then too, the tide is turning strongly against them. 
There are many like Winckler, probably the ablest oriental 
scholar in Germany, who formerly thought there might be 
something to this higher critical theory but after examining it 
thoroughly has utterly rejected it. 

Is there anything in the higher criticism to cause any Bible 
believer to abandon his position? I do not know of one fact 
they have ever brought forward that need disturb the faith of 
any Bible believer. It is a choice between Jesus and Barabbas 
and I shall choose the former. 

And now comes a doubter rather than a critic who asks 
how we know the Bible we have is the same the early Chris- 
tians and the ancient Jews had. Well, that is an honest in- 
quiry, let us honestly answer it. 



CHAPTER XXVI. 

HOW GENESIS COMES TO US. 

It is about 1 ,900 years since Christ lived and was crucified 
and nearly 1,800 years since the last New Testament book 
was written. It is quite an easy matter, even though it be so 
long, to prove that we have the New Testament books sub- 
stantially as they were originally written, the same books that 
the fathers of the Christian church recognized as our New 
Testament while yet at least one of the Twelve Apostles lived. 
But of this I shall leave others to tell. 

The question I desire to answer is this: How do I know 
that the book of Genesis is the same that Moses had and 
doubtless made a part of the Pentateuch, although his name is 
not in Genesis neither does he anywhere say that he had any 
hand in making it? Indeed, Jesus, (Matt. 19: 4-9; Mark 
10: 2-9) makes Genesis pre-Mosaic as he also does in John 
7:22, and we must so consider the materials that made it up. 
We credit it to Moses because he compiled it, based his books 
upon its statements and thus endorsed it, and because other 
books of the Bible refer to Genesis as part of the Law of 
Moses. Moses composed Genesis from manuscripts carried 
down to him through his forefathers. 

The copy of Genesis, as we have it, comes to us through 
the Jewish copies of the Hebrew now known as the Mas- 
soretes. These are punctuated and "vowelized" copies of 
the Hebrew Bible. Until about the year 600 A. D. the 
Hebrew Bible was written without vowels. Our King James 
version was made entirely from the Massoretes, and the 
translators of the Revised Old Testament had little regard for 
any copies other than these. 

The ancient Israelites had a line of inspired penmen from 



HOW GENESIS COMES TO US 231 

their earliest history recording such historical facts as God 
through the prophets authorized. Indeed, the ancient Hebrew 
chroniclers were nearly always prophets, God's spokesmen. I 
need only to call attention to such scribes as Moses, Joshua, 
Samuel, Gad, Nathan, Iddo, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezra and 
Nehemiah. The Jews carried great volumes of books and 
records with them to Babylon, for both Ezra and Nehemiah 
are constantly quoting from them (Ez. 2:62; 8:3; Neh. 7:5, 
64; 12:23), and Daniel refers to them (Dan. 9:2). Look 
at the whole library of books Ezra had when he wrote the 
Books of Chronicles (1 Chr. 29:29; 2 Chr. 9:29; 12:15; 
13:22; 24:27; 26:22; 32:32), and the constant reference 
to the Books of Kings of Judah and Israel. We read in 
numerous places hoW such writings as were to be made a part 
of God's Word were laid up before Jehovah, that is beside 
the ark with the "Book of Moses." No people ever exercised 
such care as to the writing or preservation of records as the 
godly men I have named. Not only Genesis but the entire 
Old Testament was written and preserved until Ezra's day 
in this manner. Then the Jewish scribes later than Ezra fol- 
lowed in their footsteps. 

The Jews have been so exceedingly particular in making 
their copies that it is scarcely likely that many even very small 
mistakes have crept into the Old Testament in Hebrew even 
from Ezra's time down, or for centuries back of that, for it 
is known that since Ezra's day they have even counted the 
letters so that there could be no possibility of mistake, any more 
than there might be in copies of our Declaration of Independ- 
ence. Suppose the original copy of the Declaration of 
Independence were gone, we are all thoroughly satisfied that 
there could not be a change of a single word in that document, 
possibly not even a comma, without it being detected. So 



232 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

has it been among the Jews. To them their sacred books of 
Moses, have been so dear and they have been so careful to 
preserve them that the Massoretes and other Jewish copies 
(for they still preserve copies of the originals without the 
Massoretic marks) are practically reproductions of the origi- 
nal copies. 

Hoskins, in speaking of the book of Exodus, in his From 
the Nile to Nebo, states so admirably this thought of the cor- 
rectness of that book, and the same words so well carry 
out my thought as to the correctness of our copy of Genesis, 
that I desire to quote his words: 

"I am ready, therefore, to record my conviction that the 
Biblical stories of the Exodus are reliable even to the most 
minute details, except where later compilers have blundered 
or copyists have miscopied or misunderstood the meaning of the 
words they used. This means that I heartily agree with 
those who are convinced that the Biblical account of the Ex- 
odus is absolutely historical in the best sense of the word and 
trustworthy in its evidence, even to details, contrary to the 
usual modern hypothesis." 

Therefore, as far as I am concerned, I am thoroughly satis- 
fied with my copy of Genesis, for it is unthinkable that Joshua, 
Samuel, David, Asa, Josiah, Daniel or Ezra would have stood 
by and seen changes made in the Pentateuch, to them the 
most sacred book in the world. Think of the loud protesta- 
tions that would have gone up from such prophets as Samuel, 
Nathan, Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Daniel 
and Malachi if any one had dared tamper with the Book of 
Moses! How often Jesus upbraided the Scribes and Phari- 
sees for their many sins, but never once did he charge one of 
them with attempting to alter even a "jot or tittle" of the Old 
Testament which he time and again endorsed as the Word of 



HOW GENESIS COMES TO US 233 

God. That was one sin of which the Scribes were not 
guilty. So I repeat that the Jewish Hebrew copy of Gene- 
sis, as it comes to us, down God's chosen line, is good enough 
for me. It is nearer an accurate copy of the original than is 
our copy of any other ancient book. 

But God provided checks even on the Jews. Thousands 
of years ago translations of the Jewish Old Testament were 
made into other languages and we now have copies that have 
come to us entirely outside the Jews. If it were even thinkable 
that the Jews would purposely or accidently corrupt their 
copies, it would be detected in these ancient translated copies. 
We have some of these translated copies as much as one 
thousand five hundred years old, and they are copies of others 
on back in a line that branched off from the Hebrew 2,300 
years ago or from the Samaritan which, as an Ephraim 
Pentateuch, parted from the main line nearly 3,000 years ago. 

The oldest of these three Greek Bibles, probably the oldest 
book in the world, known as the Vatican, is kept at Rome, 
closely guarded. It is more than 1,500 years old. An- 
other, about as old, at Petrograd is known as the Sinaitic copy 
because it was found in a monk's convent on Mt. Sinai. The 
third oldest Bible is known as the Alexandrian copy and is 
preserved in London. Of these only one had yet been dis- 
covered when the King James version was made and that one, 
the Vatican, could not be had by the Protestant translators. 
But the revisers in 1870 had the use of all three. 

These three old Bibles are copies of the Septuagint which 
was a translation of the Hebrew into Greek. The Hebrew 
copy from which they translated may have been a Jewish one 
from Jerusalem or a Samaritan copy. I shall give reasons 
why I think it was the latter. This Septuagint translation 
was made about 300 years before Christ. Except in the 



234 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

matter of chronology, fully explained elsewhere, these Greek 
Bibles are so nearly like ours and the Hebrew, known as the 
Massoretes, from which our English Bibles come, that we 
should scarcely know the difference. The Greek copies are 
not so careful in following the Hebrew. The translators 
were certainly not Jews for they took liberties in changing the 
phraseology and in making corrections where they thought 
the language obscure or that some error had crept in. Where 
they took such liberties they generally made matters worse. 
But in all these slight variations there was nothing that changed 
any doctrinal or historical statement except in the matter of 
chronology. In a few places the Greek Bibles have very 
greatly helped us to understand obscure passages in the Mas- 
soretes. 

So satisfactory were these Greek Bibles and so nearly like 
the Jewish Hebrew that they circulated together in Jerusa- 
lem in Christ's time and nearly all the quotations in the New 
Testament are from this Greek Septuagint. 

Now we have these Septuagint Bibles which prove that no 
vital changes could have been made by the Jews in the Hebrew 
in the last 2,200 years. How comforting for us to know 
that we have the Bible substantially as it was almost back to 
Ezra's day, for he was alive only little more than a hundred 
years earlier. What a tremendous safeguard was this Greek 
Bible which God in his providence and purpose placed against 
any attempt by the Jews to alter the Old Testament. 

But God did not stop there. He determined to let us 
know positively that the very oldest part of the Old Testament, 
the Pentateuch, as our English Bibles have it from the Jews' 
Hebrew, is correct when it varies from the Septuagint. So 
God has preserved for us a copy of the Pentateuch outside 
both the Jews and the Greeks, and probably 350 years older 



HOW GENESIS COMES TO US 235 

than the Septuagint. I refer to the Samaritan Pentateuch. 
This is another most wonderful providence of God to assure 
us of the authenticity of all the Old Testament. As the 
Samaritan copy is really that in usei in the kingdom set up by 
Jeroboam at Solomon's death, it lets us know that the Penta- 
teuch we have is the same that Solomon had, and he very 
likely had the same copy that Moses wrote. This Samaritan 
Pentateuch carries us back 3,000 years, within 500 years of 
the time when Moses wrote the Pentateuch. The Samaritan 
Pentateuch is almost like ours. It varies much less than does 
the Septuagint. 

I shall now tell you why I am convinced the Septuagint 
was translated from the Samaritan and not from a Jerusalem 
copy. I have elsewhere shown that either the Septuagint 
copied from the Samaritan in making up its chronology or vice 
versa. But there are other evidences that one copied from 
the other, things that were not in the Jews' Pentateuch. I shall 
give a few examples: In Ex. 12:40, after the word 'Egypt,' 
the Samaritan copy has "and the land of Canaan." The 
Septuagint has the same additional words. One got them 
from the other. These words are not in our Bible which 
is like that which the Jews always used and still use. In Ex. 
13:6, the Samaritan and Septuagint say "Six days ye shall 
eat," but the Jewish Hebrew says "Seven days." In Ex. 
18:6, the Samaritan has "Behold thy father-in-law." The 
Jewish copy has "I, thy father-in-law." The Septuagint fol- 
lows the former. In Gen. 4:8, the Samaritan has "And Cain 
said to Abel his brother, Let us go into the field. And it 
came to pass, etc." The Septuagint has exactly the same 
words, while the Jewish Genesis leaves out the words "Let 
us go into the field." I could quote a number of other in- 
stances like these. 



236 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

Was the Septuagint a free translation from the Samaritan? 
I think so. The Samaritan could not have been modelled from 
the Septuagint, because the former was much the older of 
the two. I have shown in chapter III that the Assyrian king 
as early as 650 B. C. likely had this Samaritan Pentateuch 
prepared for this people. This was 350 years before there 
was a Greek translation. We may be certain also that they 
had this Samaritan Pentateuch in their temple service (Neh. 
13:28) on Mt. Gerizim more than a hundred years before 
the making of the Septuagint. So, then, it is beyond contro- 
versy that the Greek translators had the Samaritan copy before 
them. 

Not only was the Septuagint not based on a Jewish copy 
but it was not translated by Jewish scribes, and by those who 
poorly understood Hebrew. All Hebrew scholars tell us this. 
The Oxford Helps to the Study of the Bible, p. 12, says, 
*'It is not accurately translated from the Hebrew.'* The 
great Biblical scholar J. Patterson Smyth, of Trinity College, 
Dublin, in his The Old Documents and the Nerv Bible, p. 
152, says, "An examination of the Septuagint, with its im- 
perfect knowledge of Hebrew, its mistakes about Palestine 
names of places, its Egyptian words and turns of expression, 
its Macedonic Greek which prevailed at Alexandria, and its 
free translation, so opposed to the superstitious literalism of 
the Jewish schools, at once puts the Palestine origin of the 
version completely out of court. It was made by Jewish 
scholars at Alexandria, and not all of them very good scholars 
either." 

Besides the Samaritan and Septuagint, there are a number 
of interesting and important translations of the Old Testament 
into Syriac, Arabic, Greek and Latin, made in the first two 
or three centuries after Christ, that I should like to describe, 



HOW GENESIS COMES TO US 237 

as they all go to confirm the fact that the Bible has come 
down the Jewish line uncorrupted. My readers should learn 
about the Syriac, the Vulgate, Aquilla's and other translations. 
All this satisfies us that our Old Testament is the same Ezra 
had, and our Pentateuch is almost word for word like that 
which Solomon had. I have no doubt but that he still held 
in the temple the original copy written by Moses, (Deut. 31 : 
26; Josh. 23:6; 1 Ks. 2:3; 2 Ks. 14:6; 2 Chron. 34:14). 
In Solomon's day the original copy was not one-third as old 
as the Vatican Bible now in Rome. The copy Hilkiah 
found in the temple (2 Ks. 22:8) was doubtless the same 
old Pentateuch and it was then only half so old as the Vati- 
can copy. Some think Ezra may have had the identical copy 
Moses wrote; if so, it was still not so old as the Vatican. 

There are several books, sometimes bound up with the Bible 
in a place by themselves, known as the Apocrypha. It in- 
cludes eight books : Tobit, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus , Baruch 
and two books each of Maccabees and Judith, also some 
chapters that are supposed to belong with the books of 
Esther and Daniel, the latter being the History of Susannah, 
the Song of the Three Hebrew Children and the History of 
Bel and the Dragon. These books and chapters never were 
included in the Jewish Old Testament. Since about 1600 
A. D. they have been a part of the Roman Catholic Bible. The 
Apocryphal writings, except one book, were never in the 
Hebrew tongue, always in Greek or Chaldee until translated 
into English. These books were written long after the time 
of Ezra, so that our Old Testament was made up before 
they were composed. The Talmud or other Jewish writings 
make no mention of them, and our New Testament never 
quotes from any of these books. Therefore the Apocrypha 
is no miore a part of our Bible than is Josephus' history. 



238 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

After the death of Ezra and Nehemiah and their co-workers, 
the Jews produced writings and oral sayings which, after a 
time, came to be held as authoritative especially by the 
rabbis. These were the Targums and the Talmud. The 
latter consists of traditions (called Mishna) and commentaries 
(called Gemaras) on the traditions. They claimed these 
traditions had been handed down orally from Moses and other 
ancient authorities like Samuel and David. By Christ's time 
the Scribes and Pharisees placed these worthless traditions 
on a par with the Scriptures. Later they were reduced to 
writing. The Targums were paraphrases, or loose transla- 
tions, of Hebrew passages into Aramaic, and they came about 
in this way: Before Judah was carried in captivity to Baby- 
lon, Hebrew was the common tongue and when the Scriptures 
were read all understood. But during the 70' years of exile 
they ceased speaking Hebrew and used Aramaic. On re- 
turning to Palestine and entering the synagogue to hear the 
Hebrew Scriptures read by the learned Rabbi, they under- 
stood none of it unless somebody "caused them to understand 
the reading" (Neh. 8:7). Each Sabbath the Rabbi would, 
after reading the Hebrew lesson for that day, also read an 
Aramaic paraphrase. These were kept until the entire 
Old Testament was written down, and now we have these 
Targums which agree almost exactly with our English Bibles. 
This is another evidence from before the Christian era that 
we have the Bible as it was nearly to Ezra's day. 

The Massoretes are the Jewish Hebrew Bibles marked to 
indicate the vowel sounds. There were no changes whatever 
made in the words. This marking was done about 600 A. 
D. to preserve the pronunciation. 

The following diagram will show us how the Pentateuch 
in Hebrew comes down to the Massoretes from which our 



Moses* 



day 



Solomon* s 



day 



Ezra's day 



450 B.C. 



Christian 
Bra 



Moses wrote the Pentateuch in the Wll« 
dexness between 1401 and 1451 B. 0» 



Branching off of the 



Ephraim Pentateuch 



Massoretes 



600 A, D 



St, James tr. 



1611 A. P. 



Reyitedtr. 
Comp. 188* 
Our day 
1916 



075 B. O. 



abont 650 B. & 



800 B.C. The 



240 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

entire Old Testament is translated. The diagram also shows 
how the Samaritan and Septuagint off-shoots came down 
other channels to our day. 

So I think I am justified in assuring all my readers that our 
copy of the book of Genesis is now practically as it was when 
it came through the hands of Moses, and I have only men- 
tioned the human side of its preservation and am yet to tell 
how Almighty God, without whose notice even a sparrow 
never falls to the ground, has had a part in making and pre- 
serving the book of Genesis as a part of his written revela- 
tion to man. 



CHAPTER XXVII. 

THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE. 

Is the Bible inspired? It certainly claims to be. Es- 
pecially does the New Testament put the seal of inspiration 
upon the Old Testament. If one believes the words of 
Jesus Christ, he cannot well deny the inspiration of the entire 
Old Testament. Read what the Bible itself says about its 
inspiration: "The word of the Lord came expressly to 
Ezekiel " (Ezek. 1 :13). "The Lord said unto me " (Jer- 
1 :7). "Hear the word of the Lord " (Isa. 1:10). "The 
Holy Ghost spake by the mouth of David " (Acts 1 :16). 
"All Scripture is given by the inspiration of God " (2 Tim. 
3:16) "The prophecy came not in old time by the will 
of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by 
the Holy Ghost" (2 Pet. 1:21). 

Probably no Bible term is so much debated or abused as 
this word "inspiration." To properly answer the question, "Is 
the Bible inspired?" I must put a proper construction upon this 
word. 

If, in speaking of the part Moses had in compiling the 
book of Genesis, you make the word inspired to mean that God 
sat down by the side of Moses and spoke the words while 
Moses wrote them down, then I do not believe in your sort 
of inspiration. Even if by inspiration you mean that the Al- 
mighty dictated the sentences, or even the thoughts, I cannot 
accept your interpretation of inspiration. God never made a 
machine of the writer of any Bible book. Do I believe in 
verbal inspiration, or plenary inspiration? Not if either savors 
of the kind of dictation described above, but I believe both if 
rightly denned. 



242 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

What is inspiration? The word is comprehensive. Too 
many pretend to believe in inspiration, but drop out some of 
its elements and so weaken the word as to bring it down to 
their level. Some will say the Bible is inspired but it is 
not all true. Others declare that only certain parts of the 
Bible are inspired, or that there are such degrees of inspiration 
as necessitate the reader's culling out what is to be accepted and 
what is to be thrown away. The man who holds that concep- 
tion of the Bible does not believe it at all. He only differs 
from the skeptic, who rejects the entire Bible, in degree, and 
after a time he arrives on the same ground with the skeptic. 
If the Bible comes to us from God, in any sense differently 
from other books, even other good books, then the Bible, every 
part of it, is inspired, and the sense in which the word is used 
must mean that every part of the Bible is both true and re- 
liable. For the Almighty to hand us the Bible, a mixture of 
truth and error, and leave to our fallible judgment the selection 
of the truth, destroys the Bible absolutely. It turns the 
Bible into a jargon, for no two interpreters will accept or 
reject the same portions. If the Bible is no more than any 
other human, though good book, why take it as our guide? 

Here is my comprehensive definition of inspiration: The 
Bible is made up of the work of two agencies — 

(a) // is Divine. That is, God's hand is, in some meas- 
ure, in every part of it. 

(b) It is Human. That is, man's hand is, in some meas- 
ure, in every part of it. 

Under (a) I would make inspiration to include God's hand 
in: 

( 1 ) Revelation. That is, God, in some Scripture, is 
revealing what man otherwise could never know. Examples 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE 243 

of this are seen in the first chapter of Genesis and in all 
prophecy. 

(2) Supervision. That is, God, in some Scripture, su- 
pervises the thoughts and words of the writer so that the pur- 
pose of the Spirit may be carried out in meeting the wants 
of future generations in matters that human writers could 
not foresee. Examples of this are especially the Epistles 
of Paul. 

(3) Selection. That is, God, in some Scripture, selects 
what facts shall be taken and what rejected, as materials to 
enter into the historical or biographical portions of the Bible. 
Examples of this are the history of Joshua's invasion, the his- 
tory of the period of the judges and the history of the mon- 
archies. 

(4) Inclusion. That is, God, is the final arbiter as to 
what books should be included in the Old as well as the New 
Testament. 

Some of the above elements are included in all Scripture, 
and all of them are included in some Scripture. The pres- 
ence of any one or all of these elements in any portion of 
Scripture constitutes its inspiration. Therefore, "All Scrip- 
ture is given by inspiration of God," and every part of the 
Bible from Genesis to Revelation is true. It is true history, 
true science, true biography, true geography, true revelation. 

Here is the Devil's plan of making you a skeptic. He 
first gets you to say that it makes no difference whether you 
believe that the "whale" swallowed Jonah or not. Then he 
suggests other unlikely stories or apparent contradictions. 
When he gets you to cut these out of your list of beliefs, he 
suggests that you place the fall of man, Old Testament chro- 
nology, prophecy, Biblical miracles and the existence of Satan 
himself in the same category. Then it is easy to have you 



244 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

disbelieve the inspiration of the Bible, and you begin to talk 
about some Scripture being more inspired than others. Then 
it is but a step to where Satan asks you to reject the virgin 
birth of Christ and his bodily resurrection and lastly he asks 
you to reject the Divinity of Christ, and you awaken to find 
that the Devil has you while you are here and will get you 
hereafter. 

There is but one tenable and safe position for a Christian 
man to take and that is to hold that every part of the Bible 
including the historical book of Jonah, is inspired and true 
to facts. Some men who pretend to accept the Bible, but 
in reality reject much of it, dodge behind the word "inspira- 
tion." Parts of the Bible they do not believe, but rather 
than say that certain Scripture contains an untruth or that 
it misrepresents God or the facts of history, biography or 
science, these men say it is not inspired. Let these pretended 
friends of Holy Writ get away from behind the word "in- 
spired" and tell us plainly that they reject a part of the Bible 
as so much falsehood. Is the Bible full of mistakes, misrepre- 
sentations and lies? What will these false teachers say as 
to that! The fact is, they are too cowardly to answer. 

I believe God Revealed, Supervised, Selected and Included 
in our Bible just what we need to reveal unto us God's plan 
of redemption and his will to be worked out through us, and 
this constitutes Inspiration. 

I am told that the cash register is made in more than sixty 
parts by that number of separate workmen, each using his 
own brain and will. But back of all these workmen is a 
master mind who saw all from the beginning and inspired and 
directed it. Likewise, neither could the Bible have come 
to be such a completed and consistent whole, but for the 
Master Mind who planned it. 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE 245 

The hand of Go<$ is seen in every portion of Scripture, but 
no more than the hand of man. The Bible is the joint pro- 
duction of God and man. In this respect it exactly coincides 
with the earthly life of Jesus Christ. I believe God inspired 
chosen men to write Genesis and the other Bible books, but 
in what way did God inspire? How much did God do and 
how much did Moses do? 

There are very many things we all believe but cannot explain, 
and inspiration is one of them. Let me illustrate: We all 
believe Jesus in the flesh was the Son of Man and that he was 
also God. We believe he created the heavens and the earth. 
But we equally believe he was a man, tempted in all points as 
we are. He hungered, thirsted, grew weary, fell down under 
the weight of the cross being physically unable to carry it. 
Yes, we believe all that, but we cannot explain how Jesus was 
God and man both at the same time. It is too deep for the 
human intellect. 

Now, God desired to give man a revelation — one both hu- 
man and divine. In the book of Genesis there are found Moses' 
words, thoughts, and humanly acquired knowledge about his 
forefathers and about the Flood. But the Holy Spirit was 
also engaged upon that book as was Moses engaged on it, 
and when it was complete it was God's book exactly as the 
Holy Spirit wanted it, and it was Moses' book, exactly as 
Moses desired it. I do not understand the union of the Holy 
Spirit and man in the production of the book of Genesis any 
more than I understand the union of God and humanity in the 
Son of Man, Jesus Christ. When you explain to me the latter 
I shall explain to you the former. One is as true as the 
other and no more difficult to believe. If I reject one I 
might as well reject the other, for we do not know of Jesus 
except through the Bible. 



246 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

One may say that the Holy Spirit inspired the important 
things but overlooked the unimportant. In that statement 
the Bible is made utterly unreliable. Who is to decide what 
are the important matters in which there are no mistakes and 
the unimportant things in which there may be mistakes? Was 
it a mistake when Luke said Jesus was born of the virgin 
Mary? Was it a mistake when Luke said Jesus arose from 
the dead? Was it a mistake when Moses tells us about 
Creation, the Fall of man, the Flood or the miraculous manna? 
Where are we to draw the line? Moses was inspired to tell 
the truth about all things or his writings are no more to be 
relied upon than Shakespeare's! 

Do I believe Moses was simply a type-writing machine and 
the Holy Spirit pressed the keys? I do not. Moses used 
his own ink, his own pen, his own words, his own thoughts, 
and when he finished! the book it was Moses' creation; but at 
that time the Holy Spirit also used that ink, that pen, and he 
used every fiber of Moses' being. When the book of Gene- 
sis was completed it was the work of the Holy Spirit, and 
there could be no mistake in it any more than there could be 
sin in the earthly life of Jesus Christ. 

Do I believe in the plenary or verbal inspiration of the King 
James or the Revised or any other version? I do not. Do 
I believe Luke or Paul or Moses was always and at all times 
above error in what he spoke or wrote? I do not. Only 
as God through the Holy Spirit for a definite purpose took 
hold upon them, otherwise they were no better than we, and 
they were constantly making mistakes in their lives and in their 
words, except v/hen the Holy Spirit was upon them for a holy 
purpose. 

The following statement of belief, made by the Presby- 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE 247 

terian General Assembly, so exactly states my position that I 
quote it: 

"The Bible, as we now have it, in its various translations 
and versions, when freed from all errors and mistakes of trans- 
lators, copyists and printers, is the very Word of Cod, and 
consequently wholly without error/' 

Some people, who pretend to accept the Bible as God's 
Word, do not believe it is all inspired because it contains ac- 
counts of the acts of ancient Israel that seem to be out of 
harmony with what God would sanction; for instance, certain 
imprecatory Psalms, or the "eye for an eye and tooth for a 
tooth" Mosaic laws, and especially God's ordering the Israel- 
ites to destroy the Canaanites. Some ministers of the Gos- 
pel, lose their heads over these matters and make themselves 
and the Bible ridiculous, if their interpretations of inspiration 
be correct. 

One noted minister, in one of the great cities of our country, 
said recently, in considering the slaughter of the Canaanites, 
along with some harsh things David says in the Psalms con- 
cerning the destruction of his enemies: "I am now going to 
give you a number of instances of error and defective teaching 
in the Bible that show that it is not all inspired." 

That all the Psalms are inspired there can be no question 
unless we are ready to say that nearly every New Testament 
inspired writer tells us what is untrue. The second Psalm, 
one of David's, declares of certain enemies that God will 
"dash them in pieces," but Acts 4:25 says, "The Holy 
Spirit by the mouth of our father David" spoke this Psalm. 
Such Psalms are poetic and many of them are inspired only 
in the sense that they truthfully recount David's conception of 
how God will destroy his enemies, not that it is ever God's 
desire to have any human being suffer. This minister, I 



248 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

have been quoting, recently said, "I have never had the slight- 
est reason for believing Jesus to be mistaken upon any clear 
pronouncement about spiritual things." Well, Jesus in 
Matt. 22 :43 says the 1 1 Oth Psalm is inspired and it is an 
imprecatory Psalm. I could refer to many other instances 
where Jesus or New Testament writers plainly tell us these 
Psalms are inspired, and that ought to settle it. 

This eminent divine, along with others and the rest of us, 
sometimes condemns things because he does not understand all 
the circumstances or is unable to see all the awful con- 
sequences that may arise if certain harsh and, I might say, 
cruel measures are not resorted to. 

In a certain enlightened city, not ten years ago, there 
occurred a terrible flood and ghouls were discovered robbing 
the dead. Orders were issued to shoot any man found rob- 
bing the dead or picking up anything in the vicinity of such 
corpses. Such an order would be classed as inhuman if we 
did not understand the circumstances. Often under martial 
law summary vengeance is meted out, and under the circum- 
stances, is accounted justified. 

Israel was strictly charged (Deut. 20:10-12) never to re- 
sort to such slaughter except in the case of the Canaanites. 
Israel was appointed God's lawful officer to carry out his 
judgment. It was no more a warrant to Israel to repeat this 
act, in any other case, than it would be to a sheriff or a state 
executioner an excuse to take other lives than those sentenced 
by the court to suffer death. The Canaanites as a people were 
guilty of crimes that warranted God in blotting them off the 
earth. He appointed the Israelites to inflict the sentence. 

In the case of the Sodomites, God himself executed the sen- 
tence, and so was it in case of the wholesale destruction of 
men, women and little children in the Flood. I never hear 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE 249 

these critical divines find fault with God for the whole- 
sale destruction of children in the Flood, or even in the recent 
life destruction by the Galveston hurricanes. If in all these 
cases it is God's destruction, is it to be the more objected to 
because in the one case God chose man as his agent and in 
the other the wind or the water? Some people heard the 
same eminent divine, quoted above, declare in an address that 
God raised up Abraham Lincoln to be the great leader in 
suppressing the Rebellion and in destroying slavery. He said 
God was back of President Lincoln when with shot and shell 
he desolated the South and rendered homeless and fatherless 
thousands of little children, and made cripples for life of tens 
of thousands of Southern boys. The speaker was correct. 
God selected Abe Lincoln, for that great period in American 
history, but this divine is very inconsistent when he condemns 
the Bible for saying the same thing of Joshua that he said of 
Lincoln. God's heart was pained at the slaughter in both 
cases, but he permitted the warfare of the day to proceed in 
both instances. I do not know why God, in both these wars, 
did not reach down and put an end to the strife. I do not 
understand God, neither does this Gospel minister. 

Better let these things alone until we see them from God's 
viewpoint. If sin were not in the world, none of these things 
would occur. We cannot question God's right to remove an 
entire nation if he chooses. We can only question whether 
Israel was deputed to carry out God's decree, and we have no 
right to question that, if the Bible is God's revelation to man, 
and that is what this noted minister tells us. It was never 
God's desire that a Canaanite, Sodomite, Antediluvian, 
Confederate or any other one should suffer death. It is 
God's will to have peace and happiness on earth, but that will 
only come when the Gospel has done its full work. God, 



250 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

through Moses, sanctioned divorce, just as he sanctioned the 
slaughter of Israel's foes in Canaan, but Jesus said (Matt. 
19:7-8) it was not God's way of doing things. These 
Canaanites were given a chance to repent, and save their lives, 
no doubt, as did Rahab and the Gibeonites, but the Canaanites 
chose death. Had they repented they might have merged 
with the Israelites, as many foreigners like Ruth, Caleb, Ra- 
hab, Hobab and Eliezer did. 

We have no right at all to reject the inspiration of the Scrip- 
ture, or any part of it, because our puny intellects cannot 
understand God's dealings with sin or sinful men, or because 
we cannot harmonize seeming contradictions. If the Bible ap- 
pears to be contradictory or untrue in certain statements, it 
is sure toj be found our fault in failing to know all the facts. 
What appears at first sight as an error is generally easily 
reconciled by a sane and friendly interpretation, but if this 
solution fails, then it is certain that all the facts are not known, 
and that, even, the reverent scholarship of the age needs more 
light upon the point in question. As I see it, if the candfd 
and devout Biblical scholar knew a thousand times more about 
the Bible than the most learned do know, he would find a 
thousand times fewer difficulties in the honest Old Book. 

If God inspired every writer who had a part in giving us 
the Bible, has he also had aband in miraculously preserving 
the Bible intact until our day? Most certainly. After the 
Creator made the universe did he abandon it to its fate? Cer- 
tainly not. He preserves and sustains it century by century 
and hour by hour. 

So has he done with the Bible for our sake. Yes, God not 
only prepared for us an inspired Bible but his hand is seen 
down the ages preserving it for us, as the next chapter will 
describe. 



CHAPTER XXVIII. 

GOD PRESERVES AND MAINTAINS ALL THINGS. 

If God inspired men to write the Bible, has his hand also 
preserved it for us all these centuries? It would be an unac- 
countable oversight on God's part if he had not done so. 

Who made the universe, each star, each planet; so adjusted, 
timed and interrelated that all is a symmetric whole? It was 
an Almighty One who did that, and the making of the universe 
had and has the attention of the Creator in its every part, even 
to the most minute atom. Who fitted up the earth, providing 
it with water, air, sunlight; hid the coal, iron, gold and silver 
in its bowels, and produced animal and vegetable life and 
finally man himself? It was the same Allwise Being who gave 
us the Bible. Who constructed that wonderful mechanism, 
the body of man, the heart, the blood, the eye, the ear, the 
feet, the hands, to say nothing of mind, intellect, reason? It 
was God Almighty. Did all these things thus created need 
and actually have a Superintendent, an Architect, a Preserver, 
an Inspirator? I cannot conceive of their creation otherwise. 
Who gave us the record of geological ages wrapped up in the 
rocks of the earth? Who authorized it? Who superintend- 
ed it? It was the God of Genesis. Would God do all that 
and after creating man leave him in utter darkness and ignor- 
ance as to his duty toward this Creator, or after provid- 
ing a Bible would he abandon it to its fate? I do not be- 
lieve it, neither do you. 

You may ask me who selected the 39 Old Testament and 
the 27 New Testament books. Tell me how the oak tree 
grows; how and why the nourishment travels up and out its 
branches; why the leaves are oak and not walnut, and why 



252 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

its fruit is after its kind. The same Allwise Creator plan- 
ned both the oak and the Bible. The Enc. BrL, p. 847, vol. 
3, says, "There exists no formal historical account of the for- 
mation of the Old Testament canon." The man who tells 
you that this or that council selected the books of the Bible, is 
simply telling you an untruth. Its growth and the purpose 
back of its existence, like the origin and growth of the oak 
tree, are of God. 

That Creator, Preserver, Superintendent gave us the Bible 
and he created it, just as related above, as he did all his other 
mighty works — out of the materials at hand. He gave the 
Bible to us through human means, all the time inspiring it, di- 
recting it, preserving it. The Bible is God's creation, just 
as the universe is God's; and the earth and the rocks and man 
are God's. If the construction of the universe is a miracle, so 
is the Bible. If the mechanism of man's body is wonderful, 
miraculous, so is the Bible. They are all alike the result of 
God's purpose, his watch-care, his infinite wisdom. 

No other book in the world comes down to us from such 
ancient times as did the book of Genesis and no other book in 
the world even claims to have so come. The Bible is the only 
book of all the books, that could possibly be the one that God 
intended us to have, to tell us about our origin, our duty, our 
redemption and our destiny. Genesis is therefore the only 
book that could be God's revelation of Creation and it, with 
the other books of the Bible, is God's inspired revelation to 
man. 

What is inspiration? It is God's purpose wrapped up in 
the Bible, just as God's purpose is wrapped up in the universe, 
the rocks, the body of man and the mind of man. That's all. 
That's inspiration. If you, Mr. Doubter, will go a step far- 
ther and tell me how the universe came to be, how the rock- 



GOD'S SUSTAINING OVERSIGHT 253 

record of nature came about, how man's body and mind for- 
mulated, then you may ask me to go deeper into the inspiration 
of Genesis, but not till then. So I wait, and you wait and 
will continue to wait. There are deep things of God that are 
past finding out or explaining, and these are some of them. 
Y'ou, Mr. Doubter, stand in awe before them and so do I, but 
I no more than you. For me to say that God provided us a 
Bible is no more difficult to believe than that God hid away 
in the earth coal and oil for man, for he needs the Bible even 
more than he needs the others. But of what account would 
God's ancient revelation be to us unless he preserved it pure un- 
til our day? The universe could not continue a single hour ex- 
cept it be by the immanence of God, "upholding all things." 
So it was and is as to the Bible ; the Almighty not only provid- 
ed it but preserved it amid all the adverse human and Satanic 
agencies bent on vitiating or destroying it. 

In all ages God has inspired men to do things, to say things, 
to write things. Out of these God has chosen to select certain 
writings and in a marvelous way, that we can see all down the 
ages, but cannot explain, he has preserved them for us in books 
called the Bible. These books come to us through many men, 
through two or more languages, possibly, and by the hand of 
scribes innumerable. God might have given us his revelation 
some other way. He might have spoken it from heaven, or 
written it on the skies. He did not use the means I should have 
taken nor that you would have employed. He did not even 
consult the higher critics. Possibly he made a mistake in this, 
for what wisdom he would have gained had he taken them into 
his cabinet! 

It has been next to impossible, humanly speaking, for God to 
reveal himself to man perfectly. Language is not adequate, 



254 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

words cannot express the thoughts of God to humanity. Trans- 
lations fail often to give the real meaning of the original. 

After providing us his Word, God turned it over into hu- 
man hands for transmission to us. Here, again, we should have 
adopted other means. But God knew how to safe-guard it. 
If a sparrow, amid the storms and surrounded by rapacious 
enemies, never falls to the ground without the Creator's notice, 
would He permit the Bible to be impaired or in any way cor- 
rupted! We know positively that we have the books written 
by Paul, Luke, Isaiah and Moses as accurately transmitted as 
the most carefully preserved national documents. God has 
permitted the few trivial variations in order to stimulate investi- 
gation. He will correct all of them in his own good time, 
as he already has done in many instances. Example : 

Our version from Jewish sources of Exodus 18:6 says, 
speaking of Jethro, "I, thy father-in-law Jethro, am come unto 
thee," but verse 7 says, "and Moses went out to meet his 
father-in-law." Here is a seeming contradiction. The Septua- 
gint version shows that the Hebrew copyist had mistaken one 
letter. He used a letter meaning "I" when he should have 
taken another very similar character meaning "behold." So 
the 6th verse, correctly written and translated, would be some 
one saying to Moses, "Behold, thy father-in-law Jethro, is 
come to meet thee," and thus the seeming contradiction vanish- 
es. Here is another: 

2 Kings 8:26 says Ahaziah was 22 years old when he be- 
gan to reign, but 2 Chron. 22:2 says he was 42 years old. 
This is the most apparent copyist error in the entire Bible. It 
looks like the writer of, or some copyist of 2 Chron. 22:2, had 
put down 42 when it should have been 22 ; for Ahaziah's 
father died too young to leave a son 42 years of age. I want 
to call attention to a modern contradiction, just as apparent as 



GOD'S SUSTAINING OVERSIGHT 255 

that: All our histories give Feb. 22 as the birthday of George 
Washington, and that is the date we celebrate. But the old 
Washington family Bible has his birth recorded as taking place 
Feb. 11,1 732, and that is correct. So are the histories cor- 
rect; both dates are correct. Look it up. If we had come 
across these contradictory dates, one in Chronicles and the 
other in Kings, we should have set them down along side 
the Ahaziah statements as "another Bible error." 

Might it not be possible, if we knew all the facts, that the 
seeming mistake as to Ahaziah might also vanish? Let us 
examine it: The Hebrew of 2 Chron. 22:2 reads, "Ahaziah 
was the son of 42 years." He was a son of the wicked Athali- 
ah who belonged to the kingdom of Israel of the house of 
Omri, and it was exactly 42 years since that house began to 
reign. No doubt the Judean penman took this way to say 
that Ahaziah belonged, not to Judah, but to Israel and, if so, 
the "error" vanishes. 

Prof. Anstey, the greatest Old Testament authority in Eng- 
land, p. 1 74, says that every other seeming disagreement be- 
tween the statements of Kings and Chronicles as to the reigns 
of their kings, vanishes just like the one described above, when 
we get all the facts. 

It is nowhere said, or even hinted, that the copyists or trans- 
lators of Scripture are inspired against mistakes, but we do 
know that the very greatest human vigilance has been exercised, 
and consequently errors are very few and trivial. When we 
discover an error, we can and must, unless we want to dis- 
credit God's Word, decide at once that it has crept into the 
Bible since the original document was written. To illustrate 
this I shall select the plainest error in the New Testament, and 
I shall prove to the satisfaction of any honest inquirer that this 
error was not in the book of Acts when it left Luke's hand. 



256 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

Turn to Acts 7:16 where Stephen is made to say "That 
Abraham bought." But Gen. 33:18, 19 tells us Jacob, not 
Abraham, (unless he too had still earlier done so) purchased 
this ground. This statement in Acts is likely an error, trivial 
to be sure. How came it there? Did Stephen make a slip 
of the tongue or an error of memory? By his discourse, re- 
hearsing so much Jewish history, we know he was a thorough 
student of the Old Testament. He had (Acts 6:10) con- 
founded those whom he encountered. To whom was he mak- 
ing this address? To the most learned body of Hebrew 
scholars in Israel, among them being Gamaliel. Did Stephen 
expose his ignorance before these men and was not called down ? 
Stephen never made that misstatement, he could not afford to 
do that. Who reported this address to Luke? Doubtless, it 
was Paul, another man familiar with the Hebrew scriptures 
(Acts 22:3). Did he report this historical error never cor- 
recting it? I do not believe that either Stephen or Paul made 
that error, or Luke in transcribing it. Luke would have no rea- 
son for changing what the others had sanctioned. But there 
is one other sentinel for this error to pass — far more vigilant 
than Stephen, Paul or Luke. The Holy Ghost was watching 
over Stephen who was "full of the Holy Spirit," brooding over 
Paul, and especially over Luke, the inspired penman. Did 
the! Holy Spirit let that error pass, trivial as it is? One other 
agent stands between us and Stephen. That is the man who 
made a new copy from an older one. Shall we say that Stephen, 
Paul, Luke and the Holy Spirit all are guilty in order that we 
may shield the copyist who is nowhere said to be under the 
guidance of the Spirit? It is all very plain. It is one of the 
very rare and trivial errors. Some copyist wrote "Abraham" 
instead of "Jacob" when his eye was lifted from his copy. 

Any friend of God or of God's Word will come to that 






GOD'S SUSTAINING OVERSIGHT 257 

conclusion. Only an emissary of Satan or some one who 
has not sufficiently grounded himself in the Scripture would say 
that that error was in the copy of Acts that Luke wrote. So 
is it with every other such error in either the New or Old Testa- 
ment. 

In Luke's genealogical list, chapter 3, verse 36, occurs the 
name Cainan, but no such name is found in any Hebrew Old 
Testament list either in Genesis or Chronicles. Likely it was 
not in Luke's original writing, but the Septaugint, the version 
in use in Palestine then, has it and some copyist, noticing that, 
"corrected" his already correct copy by inserting the name 
Cainan or Kenan. This is, no doubt, the case as some an- 
cient copies of Luke do not have this name. The Septuagint 
does not have the name Kenan in its list in Chronicles, only in 
Genesis. How came it there? Evidently some Greek copy- 
ist glanced at the name in the Adam list when he should have 
looked at the Shem list. Even the Samaritan Pentateuch does 
not have "Cainan" in the Shem genealogy. 

There may be small errors of translation that cause us to 
almost discredit certain Bible statements which if correctly 
translated may be perfectly plain to us. Let me point to an 
instance of this kind which just now is receiving the attention 
of translators. 

Take your Revised version and turn first to Num. 1:16. 
The word "thousands" has a mark referring you to the mar- 
gin where it says this word might be translated "families" or 
"clans." Now turn to Judges 6:15 where the same Hebrew 
word is translated "family" and the margin gives "thousand* ' 
as another translation. Therefore this Hebrew word has two 
meanings. Suppose in the first chapter of Numbers we give 
it the translation "clans" instead of "thousands." So instead 
of 600,000 men fit for war, we have the men fit for war 



258 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

from 600 clans. Num. 1:21 might be 46 clans, total 500 
instead of 46,000 and so on through. We generally multiply 
600,000 men, able for war, by four or five to get the en- 
tire number of Israelites who left Egypt, which gives two to 
three millions. We have all often wondered if there was not 
some mistake about this. If the translation means "clans" 
rather than "thousands" there may not have been above 60,- 
000 or 80,000 men of war and only 300,000 or 400,000 of 
all Israel. Even if our present translation of this is an error, it 
is not a matter of much importance and will be corrected when 
God points the minds of scholars in that direction. There 
probably are a few translation or copyist errors like these in 
the Bible, but they are so few and so unimportant that it is 
scarcely worth my while even to mention them. God probably 
permitted these few inconsequential errors to occur to give 
faultfinders a chance to express themselves and be shown up 
later when the correction came, just as many a critic is made 
to apologize when exposed by archaeology. 

How do I know God preserved for us the book of Genesis 
and the entire Bible? Because we have them; it*s a miracle 
the way it all comes to us. How do you know God preserved 
to us the universe, the earth, man, reason? Because we have 
them, and it's a miracle, and no more so nor less so in the 
latter than in the former. I can believe the one as easily as I 
can believe the others and you can overthrow the one as easily 
as I can the others. Will you undertake it? 

I accept the Bible as the word of God and you will gain 
immensely, in this life and the life to come, if you do the 
same. If you find a better thing to d|o, let me know, for I am 
telling you the best I know, and you owe it to me to tell me 
something better, if you know of it. 



GOD'S SUSTAINING OVERSIGHT 259 

We are held responsible for the choices we make and the 
lives we live here. God has given us will-power and he 
places the material within our reach out of which we must 
build our characters for this life and our destiny in the here- 
after. Our choice of or rejection of God's Word and its 
Christ has all to do in making up the life record which we 
leave behind to be read by others, and we shall carry the 
same record with us to the bar of God. 



"We are writing a Gospel 

A chapter each day, 
By deedsi that we do, 

By words that we say. 
Men read what we write, 

Whether faithless or true. 
Friend: What is the Gospel 

According to you?" 



CHAPTER XXIX. 

GOD, THE CREATOR AND PRESERVER, UNHINDERED. 

There is a new and unwholesome doctrine extant these days, 
to the effect that God has his hands tied, so far as things go 
now. God may have exerted himself "in the beginning" when 
he created the heavens and the earth, but since then, as a cer- 
tain writer says, "mankind is given over to the tender mercies 
of a mechanical universe the wheels of whose machinery are 
left to move on without any immediate Divine direction." I 
want to point out the utter foolishness of all this. I do not 
believe in thq modern idea of a scientific God who has turned 
everything over to "natural laws," whatever that may mean. 
I know that life, as we see it every day, does not work that 
way. I am an agent, free to act, within certain limitations; 
God is an agent, free to act without limitations, humanly 
speaking. 

There is a law of nature, but I can interfere with it and so 
can you and both of us do so, day after day. Can God do 
so? Why not? Have I more privileges than God Almighty? 
Genesis teaches that God was constantly active, driving man 
out of Eden, punishing Cain, translating Enoch, miraculously 
saving Noah, hearing and answering Abraham's prayer as to 
Sodom and Lot, sending Joseph as a slave to Egypt and thus 
preserving his chosen people Israel. If God did not do these 
things then Genesis is false. If he did these things, he can 
now answer prayer and perform miracles. For God to hear 
and answer prayer and perform a miracle is as easy for Him 
in his realm as for me to act in my sphere or you in yours, 
and both of us are constantly found doing so. I see a fruit 
tree on which is unripe fruit. Nature has not finished 
her work. The fruit is not yet ready to drop, but I inter- 



GOD CONSTANTLY ACTIVE 261 

fere. I pluck the unripe fruit. Can God do that; send 
his wind-storm or send me or you or cause the insect to make 
the fruit drop? If I am free to pluck that fruit, certainly 
God is. Suppose some human being is in dire distress and he 
prays you to come to his rescue and you do so ; that is nothing 
uncommon. But suppose no human aid can be had and the 
same one in dire distress prays God for succor, can he help 
him? If not, why not? If you rescue this needy one it is 
not a miracle; if God does so, we call it a miracle; but it is 
a thousand times easier for God to do that than for you, for 
his ability to act is far beyond yours. Can God answer 
prayer? If not, why not? Who has tied God's hands that 
he cannot perform little deeds or mighty deeds? "The fool 
hath said in his heart there is no God" and another fool has 
said, "Yes, there is a God but he cannot answer prayer. He 
can not do things unless natural law permits him." 

The critic and materialist are determined to get rid of the 
miraculous and supernatural in the Bible, but they cannot get 
rid of the supernatural in nature. There is one place at least 
where they all have to admit God, that is where dead matter 
took on life. 

Certainly no one is so foolish as to believe that the universe 
and all life on the earth evolved of its own accord. Darwin 
did not believe that, and Prof. Alfred Wallace, one of the 
most enthusiastic of Darwin's pupils, is quoted as saying, "Nei- 
ther the probability of such an origin, nor even the possibility 
has been supported by anything which can be called scientific 
facts or logical reasoning." 

Some people tell us God made the world and then folded 
his hands; but not so. He is a free agent and must act as 
occasion arises, humanly speaking, and as God's Word tells us, 
or man, another agent, would upturn and overturn God's pur- 



262 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

poses. Then, too, there is the Devil who never sleeps, judg- 
ing by results; what havoc he would do if God's hands are 
tied. It is not so. 

God takes account of the free agency of both man and 
Satan and changes his plans to adapt them to what man or 
Satan has done. Read 1 Ks. 2 1 :29 ; 2 Ks. 20 : 1 , 5. There 
are scores of like instances where God adapts his acts to fit 
into changed conditions brought about by man or Satan. 

"God moves in a mysterious way, 

His wonders to perform; 
He plants his footsteps in the sea, 

And rides upon the storm." 

God has ordained prayer and in answer to it he does 
things that he otherwise would not do. He does this every day 
because he is free to act as occasion arises and none can 
hinder. Two examples: 

She was the only child of devout Christian parents. Like 
little Samuel of old she had been dedicated to God in prayer 
and like him she had given her heart to God and pledged her 
services to him. He calls her to go to the foreign field as a 
missionary. The hearts of her parents are torn with anguish 
to have her go so far away amid dangers. They pray. God 
gives the assurance of her call and of his guidance. They 
submit and amid tears and prayers she departs. With God's 
blessing she labors seven long and successful years. She is 
granted leave to return to her native land. She hurries from 
the Orient to Rome and by rail and water to England. O, 
how she prays that God will spare her to see again that dear 
mother and father who at home can scarcely await her re- 
turn. They have long ago learned to put perfect trust in God 
and they ask him to build a wall of protection around her and 
to spare her; but every prayer ends with: "Not our will but 
thine be done." Will God who created an universe and gave 



GOD CONSTANTLY ACTIVE 263 

life to the tiniest insect, hear and answer these prayers? Pos- 
sibly not just as this young woman or as these parents may de- 
sire; he may not even permit them to see each other on earth, 
but, if not, he will do infinitely better. That is genuine prayer. 
A great ocean liner is waiting. The hour is set and the cab 
brings the young woman to the pier. She tails to see her bag- 
gage. The drayman has forgotten it, and it is now too late. 
She must wait for a later steamer. She is sorely disappointed. 
Has God forgotten, that he would let so trifling a thing 
hinder? The great Titanic swings away, and goes down in 
the Atlantic! This story is based on fact, and this daughter 
and these parents believe in prayer ; do you ? 

On an ocean vessel several passengers were gathered sing- 
ing sacred songs. After one song, a passenger remarked 
how that song revived sacred memories. He related how, as a 
Confederate soldier boy on a great battlefield, he was a sentry 
in a very dangerous place, and how with thoughts of home and 
mother, his eyes filled with tears. Then with a prayer on his 
lips, and to forget his loneliness and keep up courage, he hum- 
med the song they had just sung: "Jesus, lover of my soul." 
Another passenger who seemed very much interested spoke. 
He related how on that same battlefield on that night he, with 
a party of Union scouts, saw a lone Confederate sentry and 
leveled their guns to fire when they heard him quietly sing: 
"Cover my defensless head with the shadow of thy wing." 
Then came the order: "Boys, lower your rifles." These two 
old veterans believe in prayer; do you? 

We are told that God made the world but he could not 
make a Bible or superintend its making. God had to be 
around in world making or everything would have gone to 
smash, why not in Bible making and why not in character 
building when man submits himself to God? 



264 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

That God is constantly at work in nature doing things that 
are unaccountable, under any law we know, is being shown 
conclusively every day. 

We are told some remarkable things by Dr. Franz Boas, of 
Columbia University, as to changes in the anatomy of im- 
migrants after arriving in America. From a certain region in 
Europe come dolichocephalic, or long headed parents and 
children. After being here a few years, more children are 
born, but their heads are not so long as that of the other 
children born in Europe, and by the time the second or third 
generations are produced the heads of the descendants, still 
of unmixed blood, are almost like Americans. So it works 
with the brachycephalic, or broad headed people, from an- 
other section of Europe. How comes this which of itself 
knocks modern evolution higher than a kite? It cannot be 
explained by "natural selection," "survival of the fittest" or 
"development." It is one feature of God at work. A new 
species comes suddenly into being, as the geological stratas 
show. It comes by no known law. What is it? It is God 
doing things, call it by what name you may. 

An Iowa farmer goes into his cornfield and finds a new 
variety of corn. The grower had nothing whatever to do 
with it. It was as much a surprise to him as to anyone else. 
Whence) came it? It was God at work. 

And so God creates here, he interferes there, he overthrows 
in one place and he builds up in another. "He heareth the 
ravens when they cry." "Not a sparrow falls to the ground 
without his notice." "The very hairs of your head are num- 
bered." That is the conception of God we get from God's 
Word and it is the conception we get of God from nature, 
and it is perfectly satisfactory to me. Would you have it 
otherwise? Do you think the scientist has succeeded in ty- 



GOD CONSTANTLY ACTIVE 265 

ing God's hands? It does not appear so to me. I believe in 
the God of Genesis, do you? I believe he hears and answers 
prayers and performs miracles, do you? 

A writer in the Sunday School Times puts it this way: 
"Did God create matter and endow it with wonderful 
properties of evolution whereby the most wonderful and 
complicated creatures could evolve, he remaining only a 
spectator through the eons? To me, this would be hard- 
er to believe than all the miracles of Holy Writ. What 
then do I believe ? I believe that in all this universe there 
is no power, or force, or efficiency but the power of God. 
By the conscious and continuous putting forth of his 
power the flower blooms, the apple falls, the worlds 
move, my heart beats. Did he forget for one moment, 
what, oh, what, would happen! From the beginning he 
has done all things and is doing all things. A 'natural 
law' only describes the manner in which he does things. 
In the beginning he knew the best way and continues to 
do things in the best way, hence the 'uniformity of na- 
ture,' the persistence, the consistency. I say continues 
to do things in the best way, which is a way of perfectly 
uniform, action, until, mark the word, an occasion arises 
when, in his judgment, with some sufficient end in view, 
he decides to do something in a different way. Then 
Peter walks upon the water, a miracle. Hence it is liter- 
ally true that not a sparrow 'shall fall upon the ground 
without your Father.' That God has graciously con- 
ferred upon certain of his creatures freedom of will and 
limited, circumscribed power to act, does not conflict with 
the above. It is his way. In him (not in nature) we live 
and move and have our being. By him all things consist 
(hold together). Hence I now have no trouble with the 



266 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

miracles, nor with answers to prayer, nor with the resur- 
rection." 

"Back of the loaf is the snowy flour, 

And back of the flour the mill, 
And back of the mill is the wheat and the shower 

And the sun, and the Father's will." 



CHAPTER XXX. 

ORIGIN OF THE CREATION AND DELUGE STORIES. 

A few years ago they had to tie sand bags to the feet of 
the higher critics to keep them on the ground, when the Crea- 
tion and Deluge tablets were found in Assyria in the ruins 
of Ashurbanipal's library. This Assyrian king reigned about 
650 B. C. and wrote or copied many historical and religious 
narratives on clay tablets which, after being dried or baked, 
were placed in a library much as we do books. 

The Creation story occupies a thousand lines, chiefly tell- 
ing exaggerated mythological tales of how the god Marduk 
had slain the primeval goddess of darkness Tiamat and how he 
made the heavens and the earth out of her carcass. Woven 
into such unbelievable fancies as this are a few things that re- 
semble the creation story in Genesis. 

The Deluge story much more resembles the Noah account 
as to there having been a great flood. A ship was built and 
one family saved and the ship landed on a mountain north 
of Babylon. But like the Creation epic, this one contains ex- 
ceedingly crude polytheistic accounts of how the gods tried 
to out-do one another, how they cowered like dogs fighting 
over a bone, and swarmed like flies around a molasses 
barrel, at their sacrifices. These stories depict heathenish be- 
liefs and practices as deplorable as that of the savages in the 
heart of Africa today. 

I wish all my readers could see the Deluge story and the 
Creation story as they are translated from these ancient tablets 
in such a book as Clay's Light on the Old Testament from 
Babel These Babylonian stories are so crude, so preposter- 
ous, so full of unbelievable mythology ; in no way whatever to 
be compared with the noble and inspiring stories of Genesis. 



268 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

Why do these critics tell us that these miserable Babylonian 
stories are the bases of the accounts in Genesis of Creation and 
of the Flood? If these accounts are copied, the one from the 
other, why not have said the Babylonian copies are inferior 
degenerated accounts borrowed from the Bible or from the 
patriarchs, or from tradition reaching back to the times when 
these things, the Creation and the Flood, were actualities? 
That would never do, for what these critics want is not to dis- 
cover the truth but to discredit Genesis. They are never found 
to give an opinion that seems to uphold anything in Genesis or 
that approves the idea that there was a Creation or a Flood, 
and to say that Babylon got her ideas of these things from the 
source of Genesis would imply both. 

The critics tell us that Abraham is a myth and his entire 
life is a fabrication, and yet, because the Bible says he came 
originally from Ur of the Chaldees, therefore he carried the 
Creation and Flood incidents with him. How a fabulous 
character could carry mythological accounts in his pocket or in 
his head is past belief, but that Abraham handed down to 
Moses these Chaldean stories is what the higher critics de- 
clare. They are evolutionists and their theory is that Abra- 
ham knew of these Babylonian stories, carried them to Canaan 
with him, improved on them and that they finally evolved into 
the Genesis stories as we have them, and yet Abraham is a 
myth! Bah! 

It is not to be wondered at that Babylon had her Creation 
story since there are but few people who do not have traditions 
of the same thing, and as for the Flood there is scarcely a 
race of men, either civilized or barbarous, but has Flood tra- 
ditions. The Phoenicians, Egyptians, Chinese and nearly 
every tribe of American Indians had such a tradition, and 
just here I want to remark that the universal belief among 



CREATION AND DELUGE STORIES 269 

mankind as to the Creation and the Flood amounts to almost 
positive proof that Genesis tells us of actualities. Why say 
Moses got his stories from Babylon if all countries have be- 
liefs of a similar nature? Did all mankind borrow from 
Babylon? 

Is there no way to prove whether Moses did or did not 
copy from Babylon? Yes, indeed, and the proof is con- 
clusive that the critics as usual manufactured their statement out 
of whole cloth and that there is no truth whatever in what they 
tell us. 

The Babylonian Creation story, as I have said, tells of a 
contest between Marduk and Tiamat, but this god Marduk 
was introduced into Babylon by Hammurabi's dynasty and he 
was the Amraphel mentioned in Genesis 14:1 in the days of 
Abraham and the story is thus less ancient than Abraham and 
could not have been carried by him into Canaan. Thus the 
bottom falls out of the entire critical hypothesis, and that is 
not all. This Babylonian story was written on these tablets 
in the days of Ashurbanipal, nearly eight hundred years after 
Moses, and the strong probability is that Moses had the Gene- 
sis account hundreds of years before Exilic Babylon had hers. 
Almost the same thing is true of the Deluge story. It is now 
known that this story as these tablets have it came into Baby- 
lon from Amurru, an ancient home of the Semites, and that 
until they carried it there the Sumerians, the ancient inhabit- 
ants of Babylon, had no such story except as the Mexicans, the 
Chinese and the Esquimaux have it. 

The "Creation Story," as found on these Babylonian tab- 
lets, was about this: 

Originally, everything was disorder everywhere, and only 
two beings existed — Apsu and his wife Tiamat, terrible myth- 
ological creatures. They represented water and chaos. They 



270 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

created Lakhmu and Lakhamu who hatched a brood of demons. 
Apsu and Tiamat, unluckily for them, created another pair, 
Anshar and his wife Kishar. These wanted to bring order 
out of chaos and they were the parents of the triune gods, Ea, 
Bel and Anu, and a host of other gods, among them Marduk. 
Then war began between the gods who wanted to have order 
in the universe, and Apsu and Tiamat, who wanted chaos to 
reign forever. But the gods were all afraid of these two mon- 
sters. At last Marduk made the attack and easily subdued 
Apsu but a terrible conflict ensued with Tiamat. Marduk 
slew her, cut her in twain and made the heavens and the 
earth out of her body. Now, let me honestly ask, how much 
is that like Genesis? 

The Babylonian "Flood Story" is as follows: 
Gilgamesh, believed to be another name for Nimrod (Bos- 
cawen, p. 122), was a great warrior and hunter. He lived at 
Mar ad and made war on the city of Erech which he con- 
quered and made his city. The people of that city cursed 
him with an incurable disease and he wandered to the moun- 
tains (probably Armenia) to consult the Babylonian Noah 
(called Napishtim, sometimes Xisuthros). The latter told 
Gilgamesh all about a flood which in some respects resembles 
the Bible Flood story. Xisuthros told Gilgamesh that he 
built a ship to escape destruction from a flood which came to 
destroy wicked men. After the flood, the ship landed north of 
Babylon in the mountains and afterwards some of those who 
were saved returned to the former cities of Babylon and re- 
covered the ancient records, covered up under the debris from 
the flood. The story abounds in unbelievable tales and in 
many things is very much like similar flood stories from people 
all over the globe. 

The fact that these people have a creation and flood story 



CREATION AND DELUGE STORIES 271 

is a great and overwhelming proof that the Bible narratives are 
descriptions of things that actually occurred. The Babylon- 
ians were descendants of the Bible Noah, and their stories are 
derived from the original facts which Noah, Shem, Heber, 
Abraham, Jacob and Joseph handed down to Moses. 

The Babylonian Creation and Deluge stories were first writ- 
ten about or after 1900 B. C, and the copies we get were 
made by Ashurbanipal about 650 B. C. There are found 
farther back, even than Hammurabi's time, hints of these sto- 
ries in Sumerian cuneiform upon which he based his epics. 

No, there is no ground whatever for saying that Moses bor- 
rowed his account of Creation and the Deluge from ancient 
Babylon for his accounts are the older and theirs were bor- 
rowed. We who accept the Genesis account of these great 
events need lose no sleep, for the higher critics are now hiding 
behind the sand bags. 



CHAPTER XXXI. 

THE BIG STORIES OF GENESIS AND OTHER BIBLE BOOKS. 

Now come forward two critics on the book of Genesis, one 
a really conscientious individual and the other a scientific critic, 
without a conscience, both telling us they cannot believe some 
of those big stories found in the book of Genesis: That rib 
story, for instance, and the unlikely account of Eden and the 
fall of man; that Methuselah lived 969 years; that a flood 
reached to the hilltops and only one family of all humanity 
survived; that it rained fire and brimstone from heaven on 
Sodom and Gomorrah! And, to cap the climax, these skep- 
tics cannot refrain from reminding us of Jonah and the whale, 
even though that is not found in Genesis! Well, yes, these 
are strange accounts and the skeptic may draw the line on 
them, but I want to gently remind him that he believes some 
stories a good deal bigger every day in the week, the scientific 
skeptic especially. 

Genesis says Eve was made from a rib taken from Adam. 
The creation of sex is likely a secret so profound that the 
Creator could not make us understand it if He tried, so gives 
us only this picture of it. If the scientist can explain the origin 
of sex, female from male or vice versa, any plainer than Gene- 
sis, let him step forth. But while he is getting ready, let me 
tell him a rib story that he probably swallows bone and all: 

The) nebular hypothesis teaches that once upon a time there 
was a great, hot, nebulous sun, but no earth. But behold, 
like the rib from Adam, there rolls off from the sun, the 
earth, and strange to say, with all the mighty attractive 
power of the sun, the earth never returns to its bosom. That is 
an awful big story. Do you believe it? Certainly, no 
trouble about believing that! 



UNBELIEVABLE(?) STORIES COMPARED 273 

Genesis says there was a flood that reached to the top of 
the hills and destroyed mankind except one family, miraculous- 
ly saved. You cannot possibly believe that! Oh, no. Ge- 
ology tells us that once, "quite recently," water covered all 
England and Scotland hundreds of feet deep, Central Asia was 
depressed 2,000 feet, the ocean covered all central Europe. 
In fact geology tells us that almost if not all the inhabitable 
earth was submerged in water. Pick up any geology and it 
will tell you this. Do you believe it? Certainly, you are 
set down as an ignoramus, if you do not believe it. But when 
the Bible tells you the same story, thousands of years before 
the geologists found it out, you cannot believe that! 

Genesis says God rained fire and brimstone out of heaven 
and destroyed certain cities in the plain of the Dead Sea. The 
geological formations there look like some convulsions of na- 
ture had occurred. If so, who did it, if it was not God? 
A dozen years ago a similar occurrence, the eruption of Mt. 
Pelee, destroyed every human being in St. Pierre on the island 
of Martinique. Do you believe these stories? One is just as 
reasonable as the other. In one case the veil was drawn back 
showing the agency that did the work, that is all. 

Genesis says man lived nearly one thousand years in the 
early days. That sounds so big you cannot believe it! 
Science tells us that in the geologic ages weeds grew as tall as 
trees, reptiles big as elephants flew with wings like birds, and 
great monsters 800 feet long with teeth like a crosscut saw 
walked up and down over the earth. Do you believe that? 
Why, these higher critics and missing link people like nothing 
better than to read page after page about pterodactyls, ichthy- 
osaurs, xiphodons, archaeopteryx and labyrinthodonts, with 
feet like wash tubs and eyes like the searchlights on a dread- 
naught. Evolutionists will sit by the hour looking at the pic- 



274 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

tures of these monsters — some of them large enough to swallow 
a barn! Believe it? Cannot help but believe it! But if the 
Bible tells that a whale swallowed Jonah — that couldn't be — 
there never was a fish large enough to swallow a man! 




06NTIHIPP0H00ASAURUS 



A comet, with a tail a million miles long, comes into view. 
It travels at a rate of speed almost beyond computation. It 
sweeps around the sun in a short curve almost touching the 
sun, but it gets by and for a hundred years it travels away out 
beyond our solar system, almost getting away from the power 
of the sun, but it does not. They tell us this big comet is made 
of material lighter than smoke. Do you believe all this? It's 
a more unlikely story than any in Genesis, but we all believe 
it! 

The geological evolutionist will place in his text-book pic- 
tures of the feet of the Eocene orohippus, the Miocene meso- 
hippus and the Pliocene protohippus. He tells us, in all can- 



UNBELIEVABLE(?) STORIES COMPARED 275 

dor, that these are the variously toed links connecting the 
modern horse with the eohippus, of early Eocene times, a little 
animal, about like a woodchuck. Do you believe that animal 
was more nearly related to the horse than is the bullfrog? Why 
I have actually seen the most skeptical Biblical wiseacre swal- 
low that hippus story with the greatest relish. Did you ever 
stop to think that this eohippus' mother was actually fifty mil- 
lion years old when her first orohippus colt was born! That 
is, there are gaps of millions of years between some of these 
hippus links, as these evolutionists measure time for the rest 
of us. I am glad the book of Genesis has never asked us 
to believe such a monstrous story. But some people who 
swallow this fifty million year old woodchuck mother eohippus 
story, hoofs and all, are quite sure Sarah was not the mother 
of Isaac when she was 87 years of age! Oh no, they are 
altogether too conscientious! ! Bah! ! ! 

Who believes Goliath was over 9 feet tall, which he would 
be if the cubit was about 18 inches, and all because the ac- 
count of this giant is in the Bible! Prof. Topinard's Elements 
of Anthropology) tells us of a giant Finn 9 feet 5 inches tall. 
Ridpath says William I of Germany had an entire regiment 
that averaged 8 feet tall, the tallest being 9 feet. The Enc. 
BrL, vol. 1 1 , p. 926, says, "Machnaw, a Russian, born at 
Karkow, was exhibited in London in his 23rd year in 1905. 
He then stood 9 feet, 3 inches, and weighed 360 pounds. 
From his wrist to the top of his second finger measured 3 
feet." The skeptic never hesitates to accept as true such ac- 
counts if they are found in the Britannica! 

We are told that our hearts are engines that drive the blood 
through the arteries to the extremities and that it returns through 
the veins, and day and night, without a single moment's rest, 
the heart keeps this up sixty, eighty, sometimes over a hun- 



276 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

dred years. Do you believe it? We all believe that, but 
Genesis has no story half so unbelievable. 

Geologists tell us that but yesterday, geologically speaking, 
the glacial ice-cap, more than a mile high, covered much of 
North America down to central Ohio. The ice was so heavy 
it bent the crust of the earth down more than a thousand feet, 
in some places in America. Do you believe it? Yes, but what 
if Genesis had said that? 

W. J. Bryan says, there is nothing in Biblical miracles half 
so wonderful as the fact that a red cow will eat green grass, 
give white milk which will churn into yellow butter — and yet 
we believe it! 

Some scholarly people are altogether too wise to believe 
that only one family escaped the Deluge. Yes, that fable is 
too far-fetched for the scientific guy! But he has no difficulty 
in believing; and teaching that of all the anthropoid apes only 
one escaped dying in obscurity. Only one (not a whole fam- 
ily) survived to start a new race! Why, the latter story is 
perfectly natural! 

That fabulous narrative in Exodus telling that the Children 
of Israel heard God's voice from the top of Sinai; too un- 
canny and too unnatural! Suppose Moses had said he talked 
by wireless from Sinai to Jerusalem, how the musty critics of 
the past would have exploded the idea ! Now the governor of 
Ohio talks to the governor of California simply through the 
air. Which is the more unreasonable until we know how it 
is done? 

Ridgway, the Sunday School writer, says, "Whenever you 
find a citizen who cannot believe the Bible, you will see a 
man whose tin box at the bank is full of 'wildcat' stocks. He 
believes any old thing the promoter tells him, with no evidence 
whatever. You can talk gold mine shares, oil land or per- 



UNBELIEVABLE(?) STORIES COMPARED 277 

petual miotion patent to him, and if your tongue is oily enough, 
he bites, buys and gets bitten. But treasures in heaven; Oh, 
he's no sucker!'* 

I have found out a long time ago that it is the man or 
woman who gags at the Genesis stories who is the first to gulp 
down the most ridiculous eohippus, gill slit or embryo tail 
theory that comes down the pike! 

Oh, I guess you are mistaken about drawing the line on 
big stories! There is not one story in Genesis but any Bible 
critic would believe if he found it beneath some rubbish pile in 
Babylon. It is not the size of the stories that keeps anybody 
from believing Genesis, but I begin to suspect the Devil has 
something to do with it. 



CHAPTER XXXII. 
the bible on trial. 

The atheist, the critic and the faultfinder have summoned 
all the world, historic and scientific, to testify against the Bible 
and against Genesis in particular. No one of all these wit- 
nesses could possibly stand the test that Genesis is expected to 
undergo. If it be shown that the history written by Manetho 
is full of errors, that does not incapacitate it. The critic will 
keep right on quoting from it. If they find an inscription writ- 
ten by Nabonidus they immediately accept it and when later 
it is shown that that author wrote some things that had not 
even the semblance of truth, that does not disqualify him from 
being a competent witness against the Bible. If some tablets 
of baked clay be found telling something about creation or 
a flood, these are immediately accepted as the source from 
which the Genesis accounts are taken, and when it is shown 
that these cuneiform writings are very crude and unlikely, as 
compared with that written by Moses, that only adds to the 
certainty that they were the source that Genesis drew from. 
If Ingersoll had lectured on the "Mistakes of Moses," one of 
them being that Moses did not live at a time when men could 
write, and when later the Tel el-Amarna letters found in Egypt 
proved that a general correspondence was being kept up be- 
tween Egypt and Palestine using Babylonian script before and 
after Moses* time, that does not disqualify Robert Ingersoll 
from being quoted as a witness. 

So they quote Berosus, Eusebius, Josephus, Africanus, Dean 
Swift, Munchausen, Captain Cook or even some musty jaw 
bone, thigh bone or a couple of old teeth as sufficient, any 
one of them, alone, to overthrow Genesis. No difference how 



THE BIBLE ON TRIAL 279 

conclusively these may have been discredited, they are still to 
be taken. But suppose one measly little error is thought to 
have been found in the Bible, immediately these skeptics an- 
nounce to the world that Genesis has been overthrown. How 
ridiculous ! 

I never could understand why Genesis, together with all the 
history and science in it, is to be considered false until proven 
true, while every other history, inscription, cave find or 
scientifc hypothesis is to be considered true until proven false. 
Even then these are to be preferred to the truthful and many 
times fully authenticated statements of Genesis. When I had 
observed this abominable treatment meted out by these men 
to the Bible, and especially to Genesis, I had concluded that it 
was from the Devil, but on second thought I doubt whether 
his Satanic Majesty is so contemptibly mean. He certainly 
has a wee little bit of the sense of fairness, but these enemies of 
the Bible do not have. 

Yes, Genesis is on trial and each and every witness against 
it has failed at some point, but the Bible, that all these have 
been summoned to overthrow, has stood the cross fire of criti- 
cism for ages and its friends challenge the world to point to 
one real error, other than a mistranslation or mistake of some 
copyist. If after all these years a mistake has been found, 
what is it? Let these "scientists," "evolutionists" and "higher 
critics" point it out. Do not all hold up your hands at once, 
ye brood of hypocrites, slanderers and consummate liars! 



CHAPTER XXXIII. 

THE BIBLE VICTORIOUS OVER ALL OPPOSITION. 

I believe Genesis and the entire Bible because it has sus- 
tained itself; because in each and every controverted Bible 
statement where proof can be had, the Bible is always up- 
held. Prof. Kyle, the archaeologist, p. 1 69, says, of the de- 
structive critics, "No one can point to a single definite particu- 
lar of achaeological evidence by which any one of their re- 
constructive theories has been positively corroborated or sus- 
tained.'* He also says in substance on pages 109 and 110: 
"No attack on the historicity of the Bible has been sustained." 
Again on p. 51 that author says: "Even the works of ancient 
geographers are sometimes found incorrect beyond dispute; 
there is nothing in ancient history so completely confirmed and 
so universally accepted as the trustworthiness of the geogra- 
phical and topographical indications of Scripture. Urquhart's 
Archaeology, p. 52, says: "There is today a higher apprecia- 
tion of the antiquity, veracity and historic value of the Bible 
than was found in any previous time since the march of mod- 
ern science began." 

It is a very remarkable fact that the three most notable 
events narrated in Genesis: Creation, the Flood and the Tower 
of Babel, have been almost conclusively proven by tradition, 
and the latter two by history as well. Almost every people 
have some notion about Creation, an original pair or some 
like tradition. This of itself is very nearly sufficient to prove 
that all these point back to a real event, and only differ as 
time would cause us to expect. Even more universal is the 
belief in a Flood. This is partly to be accounted for by the 
fact that the Deluge is more recent. Hastings' Bible Die- 



THE BIBLE VICTORIOUS 281 

tionary gives the following countries, the early inhabitants of 
which, all had traditions of the Flood: Babylon, Phoenicia, 
Persia, China, India, Fiji Islands, Thibet, South Africa, 
Borneo, Malay Peninsula, and many tribes of American In- 
dians from the Esquimaux, Algonquins, etc., in the north to the 
Aztecs, Peruvians, etc., in the south. In fact, almost every 
primitive people knew of the Flood. 

The historian Boscawen relates the finding of a clay tablet 
in Babylon which gives a list of the very earliest petty rulers 
of that region and the inscription adds: "These reigned after 
the Deluge." Those critics who accept every old inscription 
as good evidence should certainly admit that this is almost a 
positive proof of Noah's Flood, for it comes from the very 
regions and at a date but little after that Flood. In fact the 
Flood is almost as firmly established historically as the battles 
of Waterloo or Bunker Hill for it has confirmatory geological 
evidence that the battles mentioned do not have. 

The Tower of Babel incident is now fully accepted as a 
real historical fact. An inscription from Nebuchadnezzar says 
he built Birs Nimrud on the ruins of the Tower of Babel. A 
dozen travelers and historians have visited it since the ruins 
have the second time been dug up and it answers the Bible 
description exactly and many facts are brought out in addition 
to those given in the Bible. There arc traces of some agency 
like lightning striking it and its foundation is riven in twain. 
Critics formerly said the Genesis statements about Creation, 
the Flood and Babel were all base fabrications, but later, 
when all these inscriptions were found, they had to change 
base and say that Moses copied it all from the Babylonians. 

These three leading events are only a beginning of the 
large and constantly increasing number of Bible statements 
that have been verified by history or archaeology. Until re- 



282 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

cently nearly every Bible historical incident, from and includ- 
ing Daniel's time back to Creation, was disputed by atheists. 
Not so now. Daniel and Nehemiah have been corroborated, 
so have the other Old Testament books clear back to Genesis, 
including those two remarkable historical chapters, Gen. 10 
and 14. Let me, as briefly as possible, name a few Bible 
narrations that have been controverted in the past but are now 
considered established: 

It was formerly claimed that Daniel's history was all fabri- 
cated and critics mentioned, among others, these three things 
in Daniel that were false: That there was no such king as 
Belshazzar, that the Aramaic in which his book was partly 
written was not in use in his day and that the musical instru- 
ments mentioned in the 3rd chapter were not yet invented; 
therefore Daniel did not write the book of Daniel but some 
later person forged it. Now we have an inscription written 
by Belshazzar's father giving the former's name, we have 
the "Jeb" letters of that very time found in Egypt using the 
same Aramaic that Daniel used and it is now proven that 
those musical instruments were in use long before that time. 
Other objections to Daniel have disappeared like these. 

Skeptics pointed to 2 Kings 19:35 as nothing but a pre- 
varication. It was unreasonable that Sennacherib's army, 
1 80,000 men, would perish in one night. What is known as 
the Nebbi-Yunus tablet inscription found in Assyria says a 
storm destroyed Sennacherib's army on this very occasion. 
Budge's Egyptian history also states the same thing. Prof. 
James Black in the National Geographic Magazine for Feb., 
1916, says, "The disaster which happened to Sennacherib's 
army perfectly accurately recorded in Scripture, took place not 
near Jerusalem, but down on the frontier of Egypt." 

Exodus 1:11 says Israel built storehouses and the critics 



THE BIBLE VICTORIOUS 283 

said such a thing was not done. The explorer Naville in 
1883 found these storehouses in that part of Egypt inhabited 
by the Israelites. 

Genesis relates many things of the Hittites. The skeptics 
said no such people or nation ever lived. Explorers have 
dug up great cities belonging to this strange people and very 
many inscriptions in hieroglyphics that cannot yet be read. It 
is now known that the; Hittites were as powerful as Egypt at 
one time. 

All the older critics said Moses could not have written his 
code of laws for there were no such laws anywhere in his day, 
and now you can get a book with a full code of laws writ- 
ten by Hammurabi, 400 years before Moses, and the critics 
have the gall to turn round and say that Moses copied his 
from Hammurabi. 

Genesis 10:22 said the Elamites were Semites but history 
seemed to say that they were Kassites, that is descendants of 
Ham. But French explorers have dug deeper at Susa, the 
capital of Elam, and found that the Semites lived there be- 
fore; the Hamites came. 

Joseph tells of the corn famine in Egypt. The skeptics 
laughed at it. The historian Brugsch mentions an inscription 
found at El Kab, Egypt, of Joseph's time, which reads: "I 
was watchful at the time of sowing. And now when a famine 
arose, lasting many years, I issued out corn to the city each 
year of famine." In this connection I want to call attention 
to the fact that Joseph's purchasing the lands of the people of 
Egypt for the Pharaohs (Gen. 47:20 ) is proven, since before 
that time the monuments show that the nobles owned the land 
and afterward that the Pharaohs were the owners. 

Skeptics said the Edomites, mentioned by Moses in the 
Wilderness, had not yet originated, but now an Egyptian papy- 



284 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

rus is found containing a request from the Edomites, as far 
back as Moses, to pasture their flocks in Egypt. 

One of the ten Egyptian plagues was the turning of the 
waters of the Nile into blood. The skeptics said, "What a 
lie!" Maspero, the great Egyptian historian, on p. 23 of 
The Dawn of Civilization, says that from some unknown cause, 
either the growth of very small plants or animals, the waters 
of the Nile occasionally turn red as blood and become unfit 
for use. God may have merely timed one of those natural 
occurrences for Moses' use as the contractor would time the 
deliverance of a car of slate to suit the needs of the slater. It 
was a miracle because it came at a predicted time, but God 
may have done the same thing a dozen times in a natural way 
both before and after the time of Moses. 

In several cases where Bible dates and Egyptian or Assyrian 
dates seemed to conflict, the critics said at once the Bible date 
was wrong, but quite soon an Assyrian or Egyptian date was 
found substantiating the Bible. I shall mention one such ex- 
ample: Shishak (I Kings 14:25) invaded Judah in 970 
B. C. by the Bible but Assyrian inscriptions made it 926. 
The Bible, the critics said, could not possibly be correct. But 
Egyptian history showed Shishak became king not far from 
990 and that this invasion was about 20 years later, or the 
date given in the Bible. 

Prof. Ira Price in his The Monuments and the Old Testa- 
ment relates the many events from Abraham to Malachi that 
are attested by records dug up in Mesopotamia, events which 
a few years, ago the skeptic referred to with a sneer as being 
only so many myths or unsupported yarns. Prof. Price says 
the historical character of the 14th chapter of Genesis is in- 
disputable. Shishak's war on Rehoboam is proven by the 
portraits of the captives inscribed in Egypt. The Moabite 



THE BIBLE VICTORIOUS 2S5 

Stone tells us Mesha (2 Ks. 3:4) was no less a king than por- 
trayed. The records of Shalmaneser of Assyria bear testi- 
mony to the existence of Ahah, Benhadad, Hazael, and Jehu. 
Tiglath-pileser mentions Azariah, Ahaz, Menahem, Pekah, 
Hoshea, and Resin. Sargon describes the capture of Samaria 
and Ashdod. Sennacherib relates his campaign against Hez- 
ekiah whom he mentions by name, and the seige of Lachish 
is pictured on his walls. Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal both 
tell of Manasseh of Judah. The overthrow of Nineveh is 
attested by Nabonidus. Nebuchadnezzar's campaigns are 
recorded and Belshazzar is shown to be co-regent with Nabon- 
idus. The palace at Susa is found to correspond with the book 
of Esther in every respect. If the Bible critics of seventy-five 
years ago could come to life, with what shamed faces would 
they read how archaeology has proven them all false prophets. 
Another fifty years will add the whole tribe of critics to the 
Ananias class. 

The 14th chapter of Genesis tells us how four strange 
kings from the East made war on five kings living on the east of 
Palestine and captured Lot and his family, and how Abraham 
and certain allies pursued after the victorious armies and 
rescued Lot. Even fifty or less years ago this chapter detailed 
events so far back of anything that profane history could tell 
us, that skeptics declared the whole story was a base fabrication. 
They said there never were such kings from the East, or Baby- 
lon, as those mentioned in this chapter of Genesis. The higher 
critics all jumped on this chapter and the skeptics, atheists and 
agnostics joined in the howl. But their clamor has ceased be- 
cause archaeology has come to the rescue of Genesis and every 
one of the four kings from the East is now an established 
character, one of them, Amraphel, the great Hammurabi, who 
afterward became a king of the first Babylonian dynasty and 



286 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

wrote his celebrated code of laws. Even the name Abraham 
has been found on the inscriptions in Hammurabi's time, barely 
possibly, the Abraham of the Bible. 

No sooner had the inscriptions proven that Amraphel was 
a historic personage than the critics pointed to the fact that 
Hammurabi belonged to the 1st dynasty of Babylon which, 
counting the 1st, 2nd and 3rd dynasties as following each 
other, would make Hammurabi more than 300 years earlier 
than Abraham, and thus after all "Genesis is caught in a 
falsehood." Behold, again came a later cuneiform inscription 
proving that the first and second dynasties were both reigning 
at the same time, over different cities of Babylon, and the date 
of Hammurabi, or Amraphel, was thus brought exactly to 
Abraham's time. This is indeed a great, great victory for 
Genesis. > . i 

I want now to quote from one of the very latest and ablest 
of higher critical books written in 1 9 1 by Dr. John Skinner, 
Professor in Westminister College, Cambridge, England, on p. 
273 of his Genesis: "It is quite clear the names (in 14th chap- 
ter) are not invented; and it is highly probable that they are 
those of contemporary kings who actually reigned over the 
countries assigned to them in the chapter," and on p. 257 he 
says: "The four names are undoubtedly historical." Dr. Skin- 
ner also on p. XIX of his Introduction says the old date for 
Hammurabi must be changed to agree with Abraham's time. It 
took a lot of grace for Dr. Skinner to admit all this in the face 
of the former statements of dozens of his higher critical 
brothers. 

The late Dr. Adolph Saphir ; began one of his lectures on 
the Bible by reminding his audience of the following funda- 
mental facts: 

1 . There is a Book which is different from all other books — 



THE BIBLE VICTORIOUS 287 

the writings of Moses and the prophets, evangelists, and apos- 
tles, commonly called the Bible. 

2. There is a Nation different from all other nations, a 
peculiar people with a history wonderful from its beginning 
hitherto — the Jews, or the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and 
Jacob. 

3. There is a Land different from all other lands, "Pal- 
estine," "The Holy Land," as it is sometimes emphatically 
called in the Bible to distinguish it from all other lands, — the 
cradle of God's self- revelation, and the center of God's gov- 
ernment dealings with all the nations of the earth. 

4. There is a Man different from all other men, the Man 
Christ Jesus — Son of the Virgin Mary, of the seed of Abra- 
ham, the King of the Jews, and Light of the Gentiles, the 
Lord from heaven, and the Son of the Most High, blessed for- 
ever. 

Prof. Kyle, p. 295, says, "So we have come to love and 
trust the Bible more than ever, because convinced that it is 
morally impossible for it to have dealt so loosely with facts and 
never get caught at it by the archaeologist." 

Prof. Clay in Amurru, p. 85, says, "The inscriptions and 
archaeological finds of contemporaneous peoples have corrobor- 
ated in a remarkable manner the early history in the Old 
Testament of the nations of antiquity, while at the same time 
they have restored the historical background and an atmos- 
phere for the patriarchal period, so that even a scientist can 
feel that the old Book has preserved not only trustworthy tra- 
ditions to be used in the reconstructions of the history of that 
period, but also the knowledge of veritable personages in the 
patriarchs. Nothing has been produced to show that they are 
not historical." 

Hoskins, p. 77, says, "Every now and then some discovery 



288 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

is made that in unskilful hands seems destined to overthrow 
Biblical data, but it can be confidently maintained that all 
modern research has tended and is tending toward a confirma- 
tion of Bible dates and facts." 

The following testimony to Bible truth, from Johns' Ancient 
Assyria, p. 4, is especially valuable because taken from a secu- 
lar history whose author is a recognized authority: "The 
historical books of the Old Testament make a very solid con- 
tribution to the history of the relations of the peoples of Israel 
and Judah with Assyria. Menahem's tribute, the captivity of 
the Northern Israelites, the support given to Ahas by Tiglath- 
pileser, the capture of Damascus, Hosea's subjection to Shal- 
maneser, the fall of Samaria, the deportation of Israel to Hal- 
ah and Habor, Sennacherib's invasion of Judah, the seige of 
Jerusalem, the murder of Sennacherib by his sons, Assyria's 
trade with Tyre, the colonization of Palestine under Esarhad- 
don, and a crowd of other references or allusions receive sub- 
stantiation and elucidation from the Assyrian monuments." 

Then there is that wonderful 1 Oth chapter of Genesis going 
back to the Flood and naming] the nations ;of that day. Was 
Moses guessing at all that? If he had been, could that chapter 
stand more than 4,000 years of the most vicious criticism that 
any piece of literature or history has ever undergone? And 
what is the result? I shall let the great historian Rawlinson 
tell it. I quote from his Origin of Nations, p. 253: "But 
the Christian may with confidence defy his adversaries to point 
out any erroneous or even improbable statements in the entire 
10th chapter of Genesis from its commencement to its close." 
Could there be a stronger endorsement? 

To those of us who have accepted Christ as our Savior and 
Guide, there comes a stronger proof of the truth of God's 
Word and of his acceptance of us as his children than any 



THE BIBLE VICTORIOUS 289 

mentioned above; it is the witness of the Spirit. "Do you be- 
lieve the Bible?" asked a learned skeptic of a plain blacksmith. 
"Yes, sir," was the reply. "Why do you believe it?" he 
asked. "I am acquainted with the Author," was the convinc- 
ing answer. 

With all this array of invincible evidence, what Christian is 
so faint hearted as to hesitate to give his unqualified assent to 
each and every statement of Genesis whether historical, scien- 
tific or religious? I do not expect to find any evidence in this 
world on any subject more convincing than that the Bible is 
the inspired word of God, preserved through the ages for us 
by the Almighty. 

How precious is the book olivine, 

By inspiration given; 
Bright as a lamp its doctrines shine, 

To guide our steps to heaven. 

This lamp, through all the tedious night 

Of life, shall guide our way, 
Till we behold the clearer light 

Of an eternal day. 



PART TWO 

AN EXPOSITION OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS 
CHAPTER I. 

GENESIS, A VERY ANCIENT BOOK. 

The book of Genesis tells about things more ancient than 
those found in any other book. I believe the writings that Moses 
doubtless had, from which he made up Genesis, are older than 
any other accounts that have come down to us from antiquity. 
It is nowhere said in Genesis that Moses wrote this book, but 
as the Pentateuch was originally one book and for more than 
a thousand years after Moses was called the "Book of Moses," 
of which Genesis was a part, we are bound to say that Moses 
compiled it. The names Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers 
and Deuteronomy were placed over these five sections of the 
Pentateuch by the Septuagint translators about 1,150 years 
after Moses completed the Pentateuch. You will never find 
any reference in any book of the Old Testament to "Genesis," 
always to the "Book of Moses," which included that part of 
the Pentateuch which we now call Genesis. No other book 
in the Bible could have been written so long ago as Moses com- 
piled Genesis, unless it be the book of Job. Many Bible stu- 
dents think Moses wrote Job during his forty years' stay in 
Midian ; if so Job is older than Genesis, but the materials from 
which Genesis was composed are much older than anything in 
Job. If we compare Ex. 15, Deut. 32 and Psa. 90, phrases 
will be found to be identical with portions of the book of Job, 
which suggests that Moses had something to do with its com- 
position. 



292 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

I have, in Part I, quoted from ancient authorities and from 
Bible critics themselves to prove that the very earliest men 
that history tells us about knew how to write. I desire also to 
quote Prof. Keane, p. 276, where he tells us that the earliest 
historical men we know of at Nippur in Chaldea could write, 
and Prof. Clay, p. 155 says, "a regular post, or system of 
dispatching letters and packages, was in existence," in the days 
of Sargon I. This was while Noah yet lived and in the same 
land from which Abraham emigrated. I have therefore no 
hesitancy in saying that Noah and Abraham as well as Jacob 
and Joseph handed down to Moses written accounts of all the 
things narrated in the book of Genesis. They lived among 
the most enlightened men of the most cultured portion of the 
earth in their day and if others could write why not they? 

I feel confident that the poem in the 4th chapter of Genesis 
was written by some member of Cain's race, possibly by La- 
mech or Naamah, before the Flood and, if not unearthed after- 
ward, may have been carried through the ark along with other 
written matter by Noah, Shem or possibly Ham's wife who 
was likely Naamah (Gen. 4:22) and would be interested in 
preserving the literature of her people. Neither was that all 
the literature, educational and religious, I am led to believe, 
this woman carried over from Cain to Nimrod. Indeed, it 
is not unlikely that this poem was a part of the cuneiform 
Sumerian literature dug up at Sappara and elsewhere after the 
Deluge. 

When God made Adam he pronounced his work very good, 
and I believe God's first man was the best physically and 
mentally that ever walked the earth. I do not believe God 1 
would have turned him out ignorant as a beast. How long he 
was in Eden, associated daily with Jehovah, we do not know 
but long enough to "dress and keep" the garden and to give 



GENESIS, A VERY ANCIENT BOOK 293 

names to the animals, birds and trees. Jehovah thus taught 
him to talk, why not to write? The skeptic is ready to be- 
lieve that any old Babylonian, centuries prior to Abraham, 
could write but he goes into hysterics if Bible students claim 
the same for Abraham, Noah and Adam. 

Birds know how to sing from the first without having to 
learn. What if I should say that Adam was created knowing 
how to talk, write and read? If our scientists will tell me the 
name of the Designer who gave the bird that power to sing, 
I will name Him as the One who may likewise have endowed 
the first man. These scientists will please keep mum as to 
Adam until they answer as to the bird! 

Jehovah himself, no doubt, gave Adam the information 
about Creation and the fitting up of the earth for man, found 
in the first chapter of Genesis, for no man who ever lived 
would have known the things in that chapter. The smartest 
scientist that lives today cannot write that much about the 
geology of the earth and not "get his foot in it" inside of 
twelve months. 

Adam likely furnished the account about Eden and the 
fall, of man as well as that about Cain. Methuselah could 
have furnished all other information of antediluvian times to 
Noah or to Shem ; for Methuselah was contemporary with both 
Adam and Shem and the latter with Abraham. Shem and 
Abraham could have furnished all particulars about the Flood, 
the division of the earth, the Tower of Babel, the facts given in 
that wonderful 1 Oth chapter of Genesis, the Call of Abraham, 
the settlement in Canaan ; while Jacob, Levi and Amram could 
have furnished all else that is narrated in Moses' writings about 
Isaac, Jacob and the Children of Israel's sojourn in Egypt 
(See tables I and II). 

That Moses had Genesis before him when he wrote the 



294 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

next four books is certain for the latter books all presuppose 
the first book. That Moses was the author of the Pentateuch, 
and not some later writer, I have elsewhere made plain, but 
to make that proof impregnable I want to add this which un- 
questionably upsets the theory of the higher critics: 

The Pentateuch was already in existence when the book of 
Joshua was written for the latter book refers to the Pentateuch 
(Josh. 1:7, 8). The Jebusites were still living in Jerusalem 
before the book of Joshua was completed (Josh. 15:63) ; but 
the Jubusites were driven out by David (2 Sam. 5:6). What 
does this conclusively prove? That the book of Joshua and 
at least a part of Judges (1 :2 1 ) were written before David's 
time and that the last four books of the Pentateuch were writ- 
ten before Joshua, and that Genesis was written still more 
anciently. Then the entire Pentateuch was in existence long 
before David's time, but David lived more than 600 years be- 
fore the time when the higher critics say the Pentateuch was 
completed. This, then, is a solar plexus from which the 
critics can not rise before the count of time. This is only one 
of a thousand things that overthrow the hypothesis of the 
higher critics. 

Now, while Moses wrote the Pentateuch, a later writer, 
possibly either Joshua or Samuel or both of them, added a 
few things by way of explanation. The last chapter of Deu- 
teronomy tells of Moses' death and other things, especially 
from the 8th verse on, that Moses could not have written. The 
higher critics point to one passage in Genesis that, they say, 
was written long after Moses, Gen. 36:31. What a trifling 
thing to make so much capital about even if Samuel or some 
other writer did insert this, but the strong probability is that, 
rightly translated, this verse merely says that the children of 
Israel had no king in contrast to the Edomites who had. To 



GENESIS, A VERY ANCIENT BOOK 295 

quote this against the Mosaic authorship of Genesis shows how 
hard pressed the critics are for proof to uphold their theories. 

Why Moses used the wtord God, in the first chapter of 
Genesis, the words Jehovah-God in the third and Jehovah in 
the fourth may not be fully understood by us, but most likely he 
is presenting God in the first chapter in his capacity as Crea- 
tor, in the second and third chapters as both Creator and Re- 
deemer and in the fourth chapter as primarily the Redeemer of 
his fallen race. But to say that the use of these names for the 
Deity shows that these several chapters were taken from separ- 
ate sources (the E, J and JE writings) is a falsehood and only 
results in confusion when the critics try to divide up the books 
of the Pentateuch and Joshua on this basis. 

The purpose God had inj giving us Genesis was, no doubt, 
to let us know the origin of man, the fall and the redemption 
of man, as well as God's desire to have men live an upright 
life and to become like God through his revelation and through 
the redemption to come by faith in a promised Savior. Gen- 
esis also shows us, as possibly no other writings do, how God 
is interested in the life and character of every individual and 
how he enters into the every day affairs of life even to the 
minutest detail, and how he holds in his hand the destiny of 
every man as well as that of all nations. 

We cannot certainly tell what language may have been used 
by the antediluvian patriarchs, but as men lived so much 
longer then than now there would have been a less tendency for 
a language to undergo changes. As Methuselah lived at the 
time of both Adam and Noah it is probable they all used the 
same language, and as Abraham was a full grown man be- 
fore Shem died they both likely spoke a Semitic language as 
closely related at least as the Chaldee, Hebrew and Aramaic. 
So that probably the language in which Noah or Shem read 



296 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

the account of Creation and wrote his account of the Flood 
did not materially differ from that used by Abraham. Not 
so the children of Ham, some of his race probably spoke the 
language of the antediluvian descendants of Cain or a mix- 
ture of that and the Semitic. Cain was early driven away 
from the children of Seth and Abel and Adam, and doubtless 
an entirely new language was the result. This was probably 
carried over into the post-diluvian period and became the 
Akkad or Sumerian of ancient Babylon, and the Hamitic 
language of Egypt shows much similarity. This theory that 
Ham's wife is responsible for the language of the Sumerians 
would account for the fact that the Hamites both in Babylon 
and Egypt outstripped the Semites in architecture, for in the 
antediluvian world the children of Cain were far ahead of 
the children of Seth, as the 4th chapter of Genesis plainly 
shows. 



CHAPTER II. 

THE "SIX DAYS" OF MOSES COMPARED WITH MODERN 
GEOLOGY. 

We hear it constantly repeated that the geology of the first 
chapter of Genesis does not agree with that which real geology 
teaches. 

One hundred years ago, we had no science of geology, as 
we have now — no division into two Archaeans, Proterozoic, 
Paleozoic, Mesozoic or Cenozoic eras. It was never dreamed, 
even, that one sort of plant life came first on earth, succeeded 
by trees, of one kind then another ; or that small invertebate ani- 
mals came first, then vertebrates, serpents, mammals, domestic 
animals and finally man. But Moses tells us about this, nearly 
3,500 years before the most learned scientist had even thought 
of it. That one fact is truly remarkable. Moses lived in a 
day when absolutely nothing was known about the science of 
geology, and yet he writes an outline of that science! It was 
certainly revealed to him, or to Adam and handed down to 
Moses. If Moses guessed at it, there would have been but one 
chance out of 720 that he would get it right, for six events can 
be placed in 720 different positions by permutation. Why 
did Moses not place the creation of man first? That is what 
the Bible critics would have done, for how could the remainder 
of the work be properly completed without the critic to over- 
see the job! Adam or Moses was inspired of God to write 
the first chapter of Genesis, or he could not have had even a 
thought on a subject that science had not yet discovered. 

The second verse, of the first chapter of Genesis, says, when 
first its author seems to see the earth, that it was dark and 
"waste, and void" of all life — uninhabited by plant, animal or 



298 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

man. That exactly agrees with what geology tells us. After 
the first earth crust formed at the beginning of the First Arch- 
aean Era, it must have been a time of dense darkness, and the 
declaration, "and God said" began the "First Day" right at 
that point, and that day lasted until God accomplished His 
decree, namely, that the daily revolution of the earth on its 
axis should distinguish day from night. 

But the mists and vapors were yet continuous from the sur- 
face of the oceans to the highest heavens; no dividing line be- 
tween ocean and sky and cloud, as we see it. The 6th, 7th 
and 8th verses, of this first chapter of Genesis, tell us God 
separated the clouds, or vapors, from the earth, and that was 
God's "Second Day." That is precisely the next step that 
geology says took place. Geology also tells us that all this 
time the crust of the earth was too thin to hold itself above the 
waters, consequently there was no land, all ocean. This 
second day began at the opening of the Second Archaean Era. 

Genesis 1 :9 says, "Let the waters under the heavens be 
gathered together unto one place and let the dry land appear," 
precisely what took place, as geology tells us, about the time 
of the Proterozoic Era, and its beginning marks the opening 
of God's "Third Day." Even yet the waters were too hot 
for life to exist, but the land cooled much faster and plant life 
began in this period, as the presence of graphite and iron indi- 
cates. "And God said," each time uttered, denotes His de- 
cree and the day then ushered in, continued during the ages, 
perhaps sometimes being overlapped by succeeding days. 

Although many other important things took place in God's 
fourth day, like the beginning of articulate and vertebrate ani- 
mal life, mention only is made of the contact of the sun's 
rays with the earth and ocean. Up to this point, the beginning 
of the Paleozoic Era, the direct rays of the sun had never pen- 



THE "SIX DAYS" OF MOSES 299 

etrated the dense clouds. If man had been on earth then, he 
could not have beheld the sun, moon nor stars. The recent 
great geological work, in three volumes, by Chamberlin & 
Salisbury, as I elsewhere state, devotes many pages to the 
atmospheric changes of this period. This was an era in itself 
— the unveiling of the great light and life giving orbs of the 
heavens, by which man was to measure days, months and 
years. This was God's "Fourth Day." It fits the description 
precisely. Geikie, p. 68, says, "The heavy veil -of clouds 
that had hitherto shrouded the world must have gradually 
become thinned and broken by the advancing coolness of the 
earth, permitting the sun to shine down more and more bright- 
ly." An American astronomer is quoted as saying: 

"The book of Genesis seemed to contradict the nebular 
theory of creation in the statement that the earth was completed 
before the sun was made. Now we know that Genesis was 
correct, and so was the nebular hypothesis, for it required ages 
before the light of the sun burst upon the earth through lifting 
masses of gases and clouds. Prior to that time there was no 
sun so far as the earth was concerned. The case might be 
the same now with the planet Venus, wKich is entirely hidden 
by masses of clouds. If there be people on Venus they have 
never seen the sun." 

The great and wonderful Mesozoic Era was God's "Fifth 
Day." Read the description in the 20th~23rd verses telling 
about the "swarms of living creatures," the great sea and land 
monsters, some flying through the air like birds. One almost 
imagines he is reading a description from some recent geological 
work on the animal life of the Mesozoic era! Why does not 
some critic charge Moses with stealing these verses of Genesis 
from Chamberlin & Salisbury's geology! LeConte, says, 
of these monsters of Gen. 1 :21, "They were rulers in every 



Ceno?oic Era \ g 

' I 2J. FLOOD 

^ jf • «! = f man (Paleolithic) 

VjOQ S Olh { ~ 1< pleistocene! 2. Champlain 

Hpi A ~\T j q* 3- pliocene £o/M5 

JL/-Ol_ X | ="• 2. mioceme Apt-like animals 

JZ *■' EoCENE Mammals. Eohipvus. ^rosimiae 



£> 2. holocene man (Neolithic) 



GREAT LIFE DESTRUCTION "AND GOD SAiD' 



McSO^Oic Era 3- Cretaceous 
GOCl'S 5th 2. Triassic 
DAY 1. Jurassic monsters 



SERPENTS 



LIFE DE5TRUCTION(5m, moon, stars appear) "AND GOD SAID' 



COAL 
FISH 



Pakb^OlC Era 4- Carboniferous 

God's 4th 3 - D " oman 

2 Silurian Atmospheric Changes 

DAY I- Cambrian, or mollusks 

Primordial 



GREAT EARTH- CONVULSION "AND GOD SAID" 



Protero?oicEra BEGINNING OF plant life indicated 

BY GRAPHITE, IRON 
VJUU O^IU CONTINENTS ANDOCEANS FORMING 

[^ A V First land appears 



EARTH CRUST THICKENS AND GOD SAID' 



2nd Archaean Era 

THE MISTS BEGIN TO LIFT 



God's Second 
DAY 



STRATIFIED ROCK 



BOILING WATER EVERYWHERE 



DAY DISTINGUISHED FROM NIGHT "AND GOD SAID" 



1st Archaean Era NO L,FE 

p lj Flfcf WATER BEG,NS TO L,E ON EARTH 
UNSTRATIFIED ROCK 
L-/r\ I Intensely dark 



FIRST OPAQUE EARTH CRUST AND GOD SAID' 



Molten Interior 



THE "SIX DAYS" OF MOSES 301 

department of nature; rulers in the sea in place of whales and 
sharks, and rulers on land in place of beasts." 

Then geology tells us that great changes swept away these 
monsters, and the Cenozoic era opened with animals of a 
more modern aspect. LeConte, p. 363, says, "In a geological 
sense, modern history commences here, modern types of ani- 
mals and plants." That is exactly what the 24th and 25th 
verses of Genesis say, and that the Cenozoic Era is God's 
"Sixth Day" there is not the shadow of a doubt. Did Moses 
guess at all this? 

Then comes the 26th verse: "And God said, let us make 
man." Wonderful! How can one who studies geology help 
but believe that Moses was inspired, if he wrote Genesis. I 
defy any man to take up a modern geology and, with its help, 
write so short an account as Moses did and so correct. 

Turn back to Part I, and glance at the Geological Table, 
in Chapter XX, and see how well Moses describes these steps 
by which the eras and all life came about, just as geology 
teaches. Compare that geological table with the above Mosaic 
table and see how exactly they agree. 



CHAPTER III. 

PREPARATION FOR AND THE ADVENT OF MAN. 

The first chapter of Genesis is usually referred to as telling 
about the Creation, but there is very little, indeed, in that 
entire chapter about Creation, except that of plant and animal 
life on the earth. The first verse correctly translated would 
read about this way: "First of all, God made the universe." 
That is, God is about to tell of his preparing the earth for 
man's occupancy and he presages it with the statement that 
before that, ages possibly, he had already made the sun, 
moon and stars as well as the earth. Then he proceeds to 
tell how he had the earth go through geologic changes, dis- 
sipating the dense vapors that surrounded it, elevating the land 
so that the waters would be gathered together into oceans and 
making the clouds to carry the rain over the land. Then he 
created plant life, and animal life, the minutest kinds first, 
followed by trees, great serpents, birds, beasts and finally man. 
Each great group came suddenly into life, whether by special 
creation or by some unknown law, no science has been able to 
tell us. This wonderful first chapter of Genesis tells us all this, 
describing the life stages as they appeared, just as geology be- 
gan to find out more than 3,000 years after Moses had told us 
about it. Moses never guessed at what he wrote, for if he 
had hef most certainly would have had man appear first of all 
life. How easily Moses could have spoiled his whole story 
if he had made a break like that. And that is just what any 
scientist, unaided by geology or inspiration, would have done. 

Last of all came man in the evening of God's sixth geologic 
day. He made Adam first and how long he communed with 
God before Eve appeared we are not. told. The woman was 



PREPARATION FOR MAN'S ADVENT 303 

made from the man and the manner of her making is only 
vaguely hinted at — partly because it is none of our business 
and possibly because we would not understand if God had 
gone farther into detail. 

God placed this primeval pair in a garden in Eden. There 
is no doubt whatever about the location of Eden. Genesis says 
it was in the Euphrates valley in western Asia, and if Genesis 
had never said a word about it we should guess that to be the 
place, since ethnology, anthropology and language all point to 
that as the first home of the human race. 

The critics tell us there are two accounts in Genesis of man's 
creation — one account in the first chapter and another and dif- 
ferent account in the second chapter. This is not so. The 
second chapter merely takes up one of the things mentioned in 
the first chapter, the appearance of man, and elaborates on it. 

The land of Eden was the lower part of the Euphrates 
valley, farther south, I think, than that valley extends now. 
The Persian Gulf and a part of the Indian Ocean constituted 
the lower Euphrates valley before the Flood, and Eden, and 
especially the Garden of Eden, were there and are under water 
now. When Cain was driven out from Eden he went hun- 
dreds of miles north to the land of Nod, the Nadu of the 
cuneiform inscriptions, and settled in what was afterward the 
land of Shinar. 

The Septuagint version in some copies instead of garden 
uses the word Paradise and that exactly expresses it. Jesus 
said to the thief on the cross: "Today shalt thou be with me 
in Paradise." This is an intermediate place. It is not heaven, 
neither is it an earthly condition. It is the abode, we believe 
of good men and women who await the final resurrection. 
Eden was a country just as Spain is a country or Palestine 
is a country, but Paradise was a condition. I do not believe 



304 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

Adam and Eve were, in all respects as we are, until after 
the fall. They had bodies, but they were semi-spiritual. I 
do not believe Paradise after the fall was ever visible to the 
human eye. I believe the tree of life, the tree of the know- 
ledge of good and evil, the forbidden fruit, the serpent, the 
cherubim, the flaming sword, all represent conditions of life 
not altogether human. When man sinned, at once, in the 
twinkling of an eye, he lost the spiritual part, or sense, and he 
was thrust out of Paradise into the earthly condition. He 
knew nothing before that of the bodily desires, ailments, cares, 
labors or anxieties, for his "eyes had not been opened" to these 
things. So there is no use for us to try to explain the sin of 
the first parents more than that it was disobedience to God; no 
use trying to explain the tree of life, or any of these things 
any more than we should explain the tree of life mentioned in 
the book of Revelation. Paradise was on earth, among the 
trees and the animals in Eden and so it may be on earth yet, 
but these are semi-spiritual things not revealed to us any more 
than angelic life is revealed to us. Angels come and go, 
they may be continually around about us, but never seen by 
us unless God "opens our eyes." God can not tell us about 
angelic things because we are not able to understand, like- 
wise God has told us all he can or all we need to know of the 
Paradise life of Adam and Eve. 

It is not altogether improbable that even the bodies of 
Adam and Eve were changed in the fall and that in the 
resurrection of the just or in Paradise the lost form will be 
restored. That body may differ from the earthly animal 
body as the butterfly differs from the caterpillar. I believe 
in the resurrection of the body but Paul tells us that our bodies 
shall be changed. I believe we shall preserve our identity and 
know each other hereafter, but that does not preclude a 



PREPARATION FOR MAN'S ADVENT 305 

change of body. Dr. Lyman Abbott was once asked to ex- 
plain the spirit body which I am saying our first parents may 
have lost. He replied: 

"Can a caterpillar understand the life of the butterfly? Can 
a seed in the ground understand the life of the flower on the 
bush? Can a birdling in the egg understand the life of the 
bird on the wing? Can a babe in the cradle understand the 
life of the scholar in the study, or the soldier in the field, or 
the statesman in the council of the nation? As little can I 
comprehend now what my life shall be. Of a few things, 
however, I can be very sure. I can be very sure that life is 
growth and growth is change, and, therefore, the future life 
will be something different from the life upon the earth. I 
can be very sure that I cannot love unless there are persons to 
love and therefore sure that my loved ones upon earth will not 
be unknown to me and unloved by me in Heaven." 

After the fall Adam and Eve were man and wife, they be- 
came the parents of children, they took up the burdens of hu- 
man life; but they knew nothing of any of these things before 
the fall. They never saw Paradise after the fall any more 
than we can see it. Their power to see it or enjoy it was 
taken away. Paradise may be on this earth. Our departed 
friends may, with Adam and Eve, and Moses and Elias, be 
occupying Paradise all around us now but unknown to us for 
we have our eyes closed to it. 

Adam may have been in Paradise many years before Eve 
was created and there together they may have wandered many, 
many years. But their life, as we count life, began when God 
drove them out of Paradise, and there is where I shall take up 
their history. 



CHAPTER IV. 

THE AWFUL EFFECTS OF SIN. 

Adam and Eve stepped out of Paradise as perfect speci- 
mens of humanity as it is possible for us to conceive. They 
were fully equipped for life physically, mentally, morally, 
educationally, religiously. They had been to God's school 
in Eden and their knowledge and wisdom may have exceed- 
ed that of Solomon. 

Genesis tells us how sin and Satan entered into man, not 
how or when Satan came to be "prince of this world." The 
Devil was on earth long before Adam was created. Even in 
remote geological ages we find one animal devouring another. 
The fall had nothing to do in originating the Devil nor was 
that the first time he undertook to overthrow the work of God. 

Then the troubles that sin brings began to appear. Sons 
and daughters were born to our first parents. Trouble arose 
between two of Adam's sons because one was rebellious against 
God and the other sought to please God. We generally pic- 
ture four persons on earth when Cain killed Abel: Adam, 
Eve, Cain and Abel. Not necessarily so. Adam may have 
been the father of many children long before that. Cain and 
Abel may have had children and grandchildren when murder 
first occurred. Indeed it is hinted that this event occurred near- 
ly 1 30 years after Adam was driven from Paradise. Eve 
considered Seth, the next born son after the murder of Abel, 
to have been given in his stead and he became the second in the 
line of the "sons of God" following Adam, but "Cain went 
out from the presence of Jehovah" and likely took his entire 
tribe with him to the land of Nod (Nadu of the Babylonian 
inscriptions, says Boscawen) and started a new race — a god- 
less, wicked race. 



THE AWFUL EFFECTS OF SIN 307 

The brief account of Cain's people, given in the 4th and 
6th chapters of Genesis, shows that they probably made great 
advancement in agriculture, cattle raising and in inventing mu- 
sical instruments and implements of copper and iron. They 
were advanced in literature, wrote poetry and built cities. 
Where did Cain get his wife? Took her along with him — 
one of his many sisters, no doubt. There may have been 
hundreds of Cain's people when he went to Nod and long be- 
fore the Flood they had grown into millions and may have 
gone into all the then habitable parts of the earth, Europe, 
Africa and possibly America. 

Adam's race, as distinct from Cain's, may have given more 
attention to spiritual affairs and less to material ancr* therefore 
made less advancement in the arts and architecture, but they 
too, doubtless spread abroad over the face of the earth, al- 
though the inducements to wander would be less than in the 
case of the descendants of Cain. 

The intermarriage of these two races, "the sons of God" 
and the "sons of men," produced a race of men mighty in 
physique and mightier in wickedness, and they were called 
nephilim, or "wicked heroes." Thus these people degenerated 
in sin, and wickedness so increased that God, to show his 
hatred to sin, and to give man another chance, chose to de- 
stroy all but one family. While sin was rampant and de- 
plorable we are not warranted in saying that Noah's family 
were the only righteous. There may have been others just as 
there were Shems, Melchizedeks and Hebers when Abraham 
was chosen to head a new race for God. But for reasons, 
satisfactory to Jehovah, he chose Noah's family and some 
others as good may have perished, as the good often are called 
upon to suffer with the wicked. Even Methuselah probably 



308 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

lost his life in the Flood as the Bible says his life ended pre- 
cisely at that time. 

Some of the ancient monuments of man in Egypt and in the 
Euphrates valley may yet be shown to have been constructed 
by these antediluvians, but no proof is yet available to show 
that any of the architecture yet found there reaches back to that 
period. Here, though, is a hint to that class of Bible students 
who think they need more years than Genesis gives this side the 
Deluge for the antiquity of Egypt and Babylon. Here are 
more than 1,500 years; let students look to that period rather 
than attempt to stretch out time following the Deluge. The 
pyramids of Egypt, those giant structures, may have been built 
by those physical and mental antediluvian giants, but I do not 
believe so. But while we may have found none of the arch- 
itecture left by the antediluvians, we do find the bones and 
stone implements of that day imbedded in the caves and the 
gravel deposits of Europe and elsewhere. 

God had taught Adam and his posterity many notions of 
religion. They knew of a promised Savior and Eve so strong- 
ly believed it that she had hoped her first born son was the 
promised one to redeem her race from the awful effects of sin. 
They sacrificed animals on the altar as they would never have 
determined to do if Jehovah had not told them. They had 
been taught monogamy, without doubt, by Jehovah and the 
first hint we have of polygamy is well on toward Deluge time 
when Lamech took two wives. They paid tithes long before 
Moses' time, as God, no doubt, had told them to do. 

Everything goes to show that these antediluvians did not 
start from savagery, rather they started high in civilization and 
godly knowledge and degenerated, religiously, morally, physi- 
cally, until the great cataclysm at the end of the Ice Age came 
and carried them away. 



CHAPTER V. 

THE DELUGE WHICH CLOSED THE PALEOLITHIC AGE. 

As I have sufficiently stated elsewhere, Noah's Flood is a 
historical as well as geological fact. Noah was told by Je- 
hovah to build the ark and the dimensions were furnished him. 
We are not certain as to the length of the Hebrew cubit but 
the ark was probably 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 
feet, or three stories high, and had windows all around the top. 
Noah was commanded to take a pair of every kind of animals, 
such as he would need when he left the ark, and such food as 
his family and the animals and fowls would need. 

Of clean beasts Noah took seven pairs, partially for sacri- 
fice and for domestication after the Deluge. How long he 
was building the ark we do not know, as Gen. 6:3 simply 
means that God probably had Noah announce 120 years be- 
fore the Flood that he would bring on such a disaster. All 
was ready and Noah entered the ark one week before the 
rains and sea torrents began to engulf the earth. It rained 
40 days but the greater part of the waters came from the 
"breaking up of the great deep," a submergence of the land 
as any geology will fully explain. The waters grew higher 
and higher for 150 days then began to subside, and the ark 
was left aground, but Noah did not leave the ark until the 
27th day of the second month in the 601st year of his age. 
He entered the ark on the 1 0th day but was shut in on the 
1 7th day of the second month in his 600th year ; he was there- 
fore in the ark one year and ten days, or one year and seven- 
teen days, counting the first week. 

The purpose of the Deluge was to destroy man, not ani- 
mal life. Noah would not know whether every man outside 



310 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

the ark in the entire earth was destroyed or not, only as God 
might make it known to him, but God's revealed purpose in 
bringing on the Flood was all Noah needed to convince him 
that all mankind had perished save his family. But as to 
animal life and how completely the mountains were submerged 
Noah only speaks of what he saw — every vestige of land in the 
circle of his vision was covered and no land animal life there 
could possibly have survived. But I am convinced there is 
no purpose in Genesis to say that all wild animal life out- 
side the ark perished. The proper translation of Gen, 9:10 
proves this when it says that God established his covenant not 
only with the animals that came out of the ark but the wild 
animals also. (See Ramsey's translation of Genesis, p. 101). 
This being so, there would be no animals taken into the ark 
except such as God would save for his purpose and for the 
use of man. As to that other oft-repeated question — how 
did Noah get the animals into the ark? — how does a ranch- 
man get his thousands of cattle, sheep, horses, goats and 
fowls housed for the winter? Beside, if God wanted any 
animals preserved that were not domesticated, they might be 
so terrorized by the tremblings of the earth, on the approach of 
the earthquakes, attending the earth subsidences, that they 
would gladly hide themselves in the ark, just as animals cower 
and hide when an earthquake is imminent now. One news- 
paper in describing the Japanese earthquake of Jan. 14, 1914, 
says, "animals and birds to the south of Satsuma were suffer- 
ing from abnormal uneasiness for several days prior to the dis- 
turbance at Kagoshima." 

The first thing Noah did on leaving the ark was to worship 
God by sacrifices, and Jehovah made a covenant with Noah 
and his posterity that no other such universal calamity should 
come upon man until the end of time. As a sign to man that 



THE DELUGE CLOSES THE AGE 311 

God would keep this covenant he placed the rainbow in the 
sky. We all know how the bow is formed and men conjec- 
ture that the same condition likely arose as often before the 
Flood as since, and so the opinion is that Noah had often seen 
the rainbow before this particular time but that now God 
named it to be a sign. I do not believe this. How long do 
you go sometimes without seeing a rainbow; a month, a year? 
If the conditions are sometimes now suspended one year or 
more, might they not have been entirely suspended before the 
Deluge and all very naturally because the atmospheric con- 
ditions might have been different before this great catas- 
trophe? I think that was the first time Noah or any other one 
had ever seen the rainbow, but I shall not quarrel with the 
man who thinks otherwise. 

It would seem from Gen. 1 :29 compared with Gen. 9:4 
that before the Flood man ate only vegetables but after that 
time animal life also was granted to him. 

The ark rested in the highlands of Armenia north of the 
Euphrates valley. Like some other things narrated in Genesis, 
the tradition of all that part of Asia joins in saying that there 
is where the ark rested, the Babylonian tradition putting it but 
a little farther east. There, doubtless, in Armenia men began, 
a second time, to subdue the earth and no doubt for a few 
years they remained together, possibly all of Shem's people, 
except Elam, until the days of Peleg when God through Noah 
ordered the sons of Shem, Ham and Japheth to retire to sec- 
tions set apart for them — Ham to Africa, Japheth to Europe 
and Shem to remain in Asia. 

The three sons of Noah were married before they entered 
the ark but no children were born to them until after the Flood, 
Shem's son, Arphaxad, having been born two years after 
the Deluge. Who these wives of Shem, Ham and Japheth 






312 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

were we are not told, but as the two races were intermarrying 
before the Flood it is not unlikely Noah's sons may have done 
likewise. In the case of Ham I am almost certain his wife 
was one of the Cain tribe, for the children of Ham have all 
the earmarks of Cain and you will observe that Mrs. "Naa- 
mah" Ham called her first son Canaan after her people. I 
suspect too, that the disgraceful episode mentioned in the lat- 
ter part of chapter 9 grew out of the dislike Ham's wife had 
for Noah and his religion, if we had all the facts. I believe 
this trouble between Ham's family and Noah caused the for- 
mer to emigrate at once to the old home of Naamah in 
Shinar, where later her grandson Nimrod became a great 
leader, hunter, warrior, and a rebel against God's decrees. At 
any rate the Hamites took up the sinful, ungodly practices of 
Cain and the entire tribe became idolaters and so soon was their 
polytheistic religion developed in old Babylonia that it must 
have been only a continuation and outgrowth of the religion of 
Ham's wife's people. 

I used to wonder why the 4th chapter of Genesis gave one 
line of Cain's race reaching on down to Noah's time. Why is 
special mention made of Jabel's cattle raising, Jubal's musical 
accomplishments and Tubal-Cain's metal-craft if it was not 
to hint at their connection with the post-diluvian peoples, and 
especially does it point to the Aryans and their occupation? 
It is plain to me now: it was to bring out the connection be- 
tween those races and Noah's post-diluvian people. 



CHAPTER VI. 

THAT WONDERFUL TENTH CHAPTER. 

The 10th chapter of Genesis is the most ancient of all 
post-diluvian genealogies or lists of peoples. It goes as far 
back as anything ever found in Babylonia and is more ancient 
than anything concerning Egypt unless it be found that some 
ancient Egyptian or Babylonian monuments, tablets or hiero- 
glyphics were the products of antediluvian races. 

This tenth chapter was probably written by Noah or Shem, 
or possibly one like Abraham in consultation with Shem. If 
my reader will consult Gen. 10:19 he will see that Moses used 
here an older document for he would not have said "toward 
Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim," cities long before 
his day destroyed. So neither Moses nor any later writer 
could have penned this history unless God rehearsed it all to 
such a one and this I do not believe, for God does not reveal 
what can be had in a natural way. Noah, if he wrote this, 
gave it as he knew the races at that time, probably in the time 
of Peleg's life when the earth was divided among the nations. 
Noah lived 350 years after the Flood, and Peleg died ten 
years before Noah. No doubt Noah's descendants, generally, 
except the children of Ham and the descendants of Japheth, re- 
mained near together in Armenia until they had grown into 
many thousands. 

There went out an edict from God, likely through Noah, 
the head of the race and now a venerable patriarch (see Deut. 
32:8; Gen. 10:25; Acts 17:26), dividing the nearby conti- 
nents among the three sons of Noah, just as Joshua partitioned 
I he Holy Land to the twelve tribes. This edict occurred 
probably some years before Noah's death and was in ac- 



314 N A AM AH AND NIMROD 

cordance with what God had said to Noah on leaving the 
ark, "multiply and replenish the earth." Ham was directed 
to emigrate with his people to Africa, but that family was 
already antagonistic to both God and Noah, growing possibly 
out of religious and race differences that I have already men- 
tioned. Ham took his son Mizraim and emigrated to Egypt. 
There is no doubt whatever about this. Egypt is called the 
land of Ham, or Kern, which is Egyptian for Ham. But 
as I have said there was rebellion in the Ham family and two 
sons refused to obey this order to leave Asia. Canaan went to 
Palestine and northward along the coast. So we see that the 
Canaanites were interlopers. They never did have any right 
to Palestine and when they were driven out, nearly a thou- 
sand years later, by Israel, the rightful owners were merely 
coming into their own. 

Before this edict dividing the earth, Nimrod, a descendant 
or son of Ham's son Cush, may have already become a noted 
leader and a great hunter of wild beasts. He was the Caesar 
or Napoleon of his day and he led a rebellion against God's 
order to emigrate to Africa. The name "Nimrod" means re- 
bellion. His people had emigrated but not where God after- 
ward ordered them to go. They went to the land of Shinar, 
the lower part of the Euphrates valley, later called Babylon, 
and there Nimrod sought to defy God by building the Tower 
of Babel as an impregnable fortress against ejectment, and 
God came down and confused their speech and, as Baby- 
lonian archaeology shows, caused the tower to be demolished 
by lightning. Then the children of Shem came in, overran the 
land of Shinar and later went up the Euphrates and built 
Nineveh and other cities. 

I shall not attempt to follow the less important nations or 
peoples named in the 10th chapter — in fact some of them 



THAT WONDERFUL TENTH CHAPTER 315 

merged into others and were lost after that time, but all that 
continued and can be traced turn out to be exactly as this 1 Oth 
chapter relates. It is the most wonderful historical document 
in existence and it alone is enough to cause any one to accept 
Genesis as true to history. Of this chapter I have heretofore 
quoted the remarkable endorsement written by Canon Raw- 
linson. 

I have said that Ham with a part of his descendants emi- 
grated to Egypt, He carried there the same polytheistic ideas 
of religion that the other branch of his people carried to 
Shinar. So, too, the architecture of Egypt took on some of 
the same characteristics of that of Babylon. While the Baby- 
lonians were building the towers and ziggurats in the Euphrates 
valley the others were even outdoing them, building pyramids 
in the Nile valley. Both peoples worshipped the same chief 
sun-god Ra, and their language roots had many similarities. 
In their ancient inscriptions the Egyptians claim to be the 
descendants of Ham. Dawson, the archaeologist and histor- 
ian, says the word Menes means "One who walked with 
Ham." This Menes is generally accounted the first ruler 
of Egypt, the Nimrod of that land. The vocabularies of the 
primitive Egyptians and Akkadians were similar and the sys- 
tems of writing had many characters in common. As to 
Menes, I would as soon think his name was but an echo of the 
Nimrod of Shinar. If you notice Greece had her Minos; 
Assyria, a Ninus; Phrygia, a Manus; India, a Menu; Ger- 
many, a Mannus, and Egypt, a Menes, and they were all 
mythological. In all of these it was likely but a tradition point- 
ing back to a great warrior at the old center from whence all 
these peoples came. It is most likely that all these mytholog- 
ical names point back to the Nimrod of the 1 1 th chapter of 
Genesis. 



316 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

The children of Japheth, no doubt, were given Europe and 
are the ancestors of the Greeks, Romans, Celts, Slavs, Teutons 
and the Europeans generally together with the Medes, Indo- 
Persians, Hindoos and others that lived along the borders of 
Asia or penetrated farther east in that continent. Japheth 
cut but little figure in the pre-Mosaic times but in modern times 
has been "enlarged" as was prophesied in the 9th chapter of 
Genesis, and the children of Japheth now can be said almost 
to rule the world, politically and religiously. 

But the children of Shem are those in whom Genesis is chief- 
ly interested because through Shem came God's written revela- 
tion and the Savior of the world, consequently our next chapter 
will trace this race from Noah through Shem to Abraham. 



CHAPTER VII. 

THE DESCENDANTS OF SHEM. 

Those ancient peoples who descended from Shem are gen- 
erally called Semites, and were the later Chaldeans, or Baby- 
lonians, Assyrians, Arameans, Arab and Hebrews. Then 
there were the Phoenecians and Amorites who need a word of 
explanation. Archaeology has proven that the 10th chapter 
of Genesis is correct in saying the Sidonians, Amorites, and 
other Canaanites, or Hamites, very soon after the Deluge, 
took possession of the coast from Sidon and Phoenecia to 
southern Palestine and even east and north of the Dead Sea. 
But these Hamites had scarcely settled in Phoenicia until the 
Semites drove them out and ever after held that land, so the 
later Phoenicians were mainly Semites. The Semites also 
at that time overrun Amurru, the table land directly east of 
Phoenicia, and drove out the Amorites, or possibly absorbed 
them. These Semites retained the name Amurru and were 
for centuries called Amorites, although they were not real 
Amorites. I think in Abraham's time many of these Semitic 
Amorites lived in Palestine and spoke a language akin to the 
Hebrew (Gen. 14:13). But later both before and after 
the Exodus, when the name Amorite is used it means the de- 
scendants of Ham, although they then may have been mixed 
with the Semites and spoke their language. 

1 he Hebrews and Phoenicians were so friendly and used 
a language so much alike and their traditions are so persistent 
that the latter came from near the Persian Gulf, that I am al- 
most led to believe they also were the children of Arphaxad 
as was Abraham, and therefore they were the "kindred" from 
among whom he was called. Likely about the time Terah 
left Ur, the Phoenicians did likewise and located on the Med- 



318 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

iterranean coast. The Enc. BrL, vol. 21, p. 450, says these 
two peoples were "from a common ancestor." 

The Ethiopians in Arabia and in Abyssinia were not Ne- 
groes, but were Cushites, closely allied to the ancient Arabians. 
A queen of that people visited Solomon ( 1 Kings 10:1) and 
I think the same people are referred to in Num. 12:1 and 
Acts 8:27. 

After the Deluge, Noah, no doubt, was the head of the 
Semites and lived in Armenia. Some Semites soon emigrated 
west, as I have stated above, into Phoenicia and Amurru, 
which latter place is sometimes called "the ancient home of the 
Semites." From Amurru and Armenia, possibly, some of 
these Semites went to Shinar, as I have already stated else- 
where, and over-ran the Sumerians, or Akkads, and mingling 
with them became the Babylonians, and later sent out of Baby- 
lon colonies that peopled Assyria. These Babylonians and 
Assyrians adopted the Akkad, or Sumerian system of writing 
and absorbed much of the ancient Sumerian polytheistic re- 
ligion. 

A little later than this, possibly Abraham's people came 
from Armenia where Shem, the head patriarch, was now up- 
holding the pure religion of Jehovah. These emigrants settled 
at Ur of the Chaldees, Chaldea being but another name for 
Babylonia. I think Eber, or Heber, the great grandson of 
Shem, must have headed this emigration from Armenia to Ur 
for these people took the name of Hebrews from this man 
Heber. Here these Hebrews, while Heber yet lived, be- 
came to some degree idolators and God called Abraham out 
from among them to head a new race. Abraham took his fath- 
er and his brother's son Lot and went as far as Padanaram. 
Later another brother, Nahor, emigrated from Ur to Padanar- 
am, or Haran, probably to inherit a part of his father Terah's 



THE DESCENDANTS OF SHEM 319 

property. But Abraham, his father having died, took his wife 
Sarah (their names until later being Abram and Sarai) and 
his nephew Lot and traveled to Canaan which land was now 
to become the inheritance of his descendants. 

My theory is that Noah and Shem remained in Armenia as 
long as they lived and that Heber carried certain sacred 
records with him to Ur and from there Abraham carried them 
to Palestine and thus they became later the records that Moses 
used in writing the book of Genesis. 

This period from the Deluge to the "Call of Abraham," 
covered 427 years and already there were many thousands of 
people in Babylonia, Egypt and adjacent territory in western 
Asia and Africa, and Hamitic adventurers and hunters may 
have penetrated to all parts of Europe, and to India and 
China, this period ending nearly 2000 B. C. to which date the 
history of no country in Europe or any part of Asia, east of 
Persia, reaches. These were prehistoric times in those out- 
lying countries and the people were in the Neolithic stage, 
generally. There was no Neolithic period in Babylonia or in 

Egypt. 



CHAPTER VIII. 
from Abraham's call to Isaac's death. 

I believe God has always preserved a people who have 
maintained the true religion. One such line was that from 
Adam through such as Noah to Abraham. During those 
years there were hundreds of other godly men in many lands 
whose names have never come down to us. God has pre- 
served the record of the men in Genesis because through them 
came to us God's written revelation and the Redeemer of men. 
In the days of Abraham, and both before and after his time, 
God called other men as good, possibly better men than Abra- 
ham, to do things not recorded in the Bible or anywhere else. 

While Abraham's call was first from Ur of the Chaldees, it 
is dated from the second call to leave Padanaram which was 
1921 B. C. Abraham was now 75 years of age, and he 
already had much property and many servants. He went 
first to Shechem and then to Bethel where he worshipped 
God. From there he went to southern Palestine and soon a 
famine drove him to Egypt. Here he used deception as to 
Sarah being his wife. For this we do not commend Abraham 
and yet deception may many times be justified. For instance, 
a father might rightly save the life of his family by deception, 
causing the burglar or assassin to believe that the money was in 
the bank when in truth it was secreted in the house. Probably 
Abraham went to Egypt without consulting Jehovah, and 
one of the results was the bringing home with him Hagar 
who proved a source of great trouble afterward. The treat- 
ment Abraham received at the hand of Pharaoh makes us be- 
lieve the Shepherd kings were already ruling in lower Egypt. 
This was possibly about 1920 B. C. and as these kings ruled 



ABRAHAM AND ISAAC 321 

in Egypt until about 1 600 B. C, when the 1 8th dynasty 
arose, "that knew not Joseph," their entire rule would have to 
be upwards of 300 years, but no historian has ever been able to 
figure out from Egyptian annals how long these Hyksos rulers 
had control in Egypt. Manetho according to Josephus, 
said they ruled 5 1 1 years and the guesses run from that down 
to 1 00 years, the time given by Breasted, the historian. 

Abraham had another experience similar to that which 
took place in Egypt, this time with the king of Gerar, who I 
believe was a Semi tic- Amorite. Soon after their return from 
Egypt, while they were at Bethel, where Abraham again 
worshipped God; Lot and Abraham, who had both grown 
wealthy, separated, the former pitching his tent toward Sodom. 

Lot was a righteous man at heart, but he never succeeded in 
instilling much of his righteousness into any with whom he came 
in contact, even his own family. He was captured in the raid 
by the kings of the East and was rescued by Abraham, 
mentioned elsewhere. Later Lot lost all that he had in the 
destruction of Sodom, even his wife, who may not have been 
a Sodomite. He would have fared better, possibly, if he had 
lost his daughters at the same time. Lot left two sons, Moab 
and Ammon, who became fathers of nations east and north 
of the Dead Sea. We hear much of these peoples 450 years 
later when Moses led the children of Israel around these two 
nations about the end of the 40 year stay in the wilderness. 

Because she was barren, Sarah, ten years after leaving 
Haran, gave her maid Hagar to Abraham for a wife and to 
her Ishmael was born when Abraham was 86 years old. 
About thirteen years later, when Abraham was 1 00 years 
old Isaac was born to Sarah and, shortly after this, trouble 
arose between Sarah and Hagar over Ishmael, and Abraham 
sent the latter two east to Arabia where, after getting an 



322 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

Egyptian wife, Ishmael became a leader and the father of 
the Ishmaelites. The later Arabs are very likely the de- 
scendants chiefly of Ishmael. They claim to be and if that 
is not their origin, nobody can give it. 

Abraham lived among a people who sacrificed their chil- 
dren to their gods, and Jehovah, to try Abraham's faith 
and to teach him to abhor child sacrifice, as the later teach- 
ings of Israel show, asked him if he would be as willing to 
give up his only son to Jehovah as the Canaanites were to 
give up their sons to their gods. Abraham believed God and 
as Isaac was a gift from Jehovah why could not Isaac be 
raised from the dead to carry out God's promise of a posterity 
as numerous as the stars of heaven? We do not know Isaac's 
age at this time. God stayed Abraham's hand and showed him 
a ram, caught in a thicket, for a sacrifice. 

Sarah died at the age of 127 and for a burial place Abra- 
ham bought the cave of Machpelah, of a Hittite at Hebron. 
Sarah is the only woman whose age is given in the Bible. At 
Machpelah later Abraham was buried and so were Isaac, Re- 
becca, Jacob and Leah. That tomb has been held sacred from 
that time and today, what is claimed to be the same cave, is 
guarded constantly, surrounded by a city of 1 0,000 people. 

About three years after the death of Sarah, Abraham sent 
his trusted servant, Eliezer, to Padanaram to take a wife 
lrom among his own people for Isaac, and he chose Rebecca 
who cheerfully made the journey to Canaan and became 
Isaac's wife when he was forty years of age. 

Abraham had another wife named Keturah. From the 
fact that this marriage is spoken of after Sarah's death it is 
generally taken that it occurred afterward but that is scarcely 
likely. It is probable that Keturah's sons, mentioned in 
Genesis, chapter 25, may have been as old as Isaac or Ish- 



ABRAHAM AND ISAAC 323 

mael. Some of these sons became the fathers of important 
races of people, all of whom settled in Arabia and later help- 
ed make the race of people known as Arabs. One of her 
sons was Midian, the progenitor of the people of that name 
with whom Moses lived forty years in the wilderness. Abra- 
ham died at the age of 1 lb and his life stands out as the great- 
est Biblical example of faith. 

There is little to be said about the life of Isaac. He was a 
peaceful man, a true servant of God. His character is well de- 
monstrated in his dealings with the king of Gerar over the 
wells that had been dug by Abraham and Isaac. The one 
thing that casts a stain on Isaac's life is the falsehood he told 
Abimelech, similar to Abraham's deception in the same coun- 
try. This man Abimelech is called a Philistine, but I think 
this is because he lived in what was afterward the Philistine 
country. A transcriber, say in Samuel's time, to render this 
account geographically intelligible, calls it the Philistine coun- 
try as we might, in speaking of New Amsterdam, call it New 
York when we meant that place long before it was called New 
York. I think the Philistines came into Palestine long after 
the days of Isaac. 

The Philistines are, by some historians, said to have come 
from Cyprus. It is much more likely they were at first pure 
blood Egyptians of the province of Captos. After going into 
Canaan, as a garrison of soldiers, they drove out or slaughtered 
the Amorites and Awim who lived there and, marrying the 
native women, took up their language and became a mixed 
race. They were in Canaan when the Israelites were fleeing 
(Ex. 13:17) from Egypt under Moses. By consulting the 
following scripture references you will see that the words in 
parentheses in Genesis 10:14 should come after the word 
Caphtorum, which is Captos (Gen. 10:14; Deut. 2:23; 



324 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

Jer. 47:4; Amos 9:7). They were probably sent up to gar- 
rison the gateway to Canaan, the Gaza district, about the 
time, or just after, the Hyksos were driven out of Egypt and 
these Philistines gave the Israelites much trouble later. They 
do not seem to have been in Canaan before Jacob and his clan 
went into Egypt. Some historians think they were Phoenicians 
but I find no reason to say so. 

Isaac was the father of twin sons, Esau and Jacob. Abra- 
ham lived to see these twins fifteen years old. At the time 
Jacob deceived his father into giving him the blessing, which 
was intended for Esau, Isaac was old and almost blind and 
yet he must have lived 43 years longer, on the usual assump- 
tion that Jacob was 77 when he went to Padanaram. It is 
possible Jacob was not nearly so old at that time as we gen- 
erally count him to be. But very likely, Isaac was prematurely 
blind and this fact would make him seem the older, and the 
accjount merely wants to tell us that Isaac desired this matter 
settled because of the uncertainty of life, not that he was ex- 
pecting to die for some years. No more is said concerning 
Rebecca after Jacob left for Padanaram and it is supposed 
she died during the time Jacob was gone, but Isaac lived many 
years after Jacob's return, in fact he died but nine years before 
Jacob and all his clan took up their abode in Egypt. Isaac's 
two sons buried him in the cave of Machpelah when he died at 
the age of 180 years. 



CHAPTER IX. 

THE EVENTFUL LIFE OF JACOB. 

We find ourselves sometimes excusing the sins and mistakes 
of the patriarchs or we try to explain away their short-comings. 
Abraham was not a perfect man and Isaac might have lived a 
more useful life. Because Genesis records their misdeeds, 
along with the worthy things they did, we must not accuse 
God of having approved of the mean things these patriarchs 
did. 

Jacob's life was full of troubles and crooked deeds, yet he 
served God and Jacob's life record is left us to show how God 
can take a crooked piece of willing timber and build it into 
and make it a part of God's eternal building. 

The first recorded act of Jacob's life shows that he held in 
high esteem the hope of Israel. He craved God's birthright 
while his twin brother Esau cared nothing for it. We must 
distinguish between the blessing and the birthright, for Esau 
did (Gen. 27:36). The birthright seems to have carried 
with it especially the religious promises while the blessing 
vouchsafed preeminence in the affairs of state or clan. Re- 
becca knew that Jacob was to gain the preeminence for so it 
had been made known at the birth of her sons. She knew 
too that Jacob was fitted for such things while Esau was not. 
Her motive in planning to deceive Isaac may have been good 
but it was premature and unwise. Moses was sincere and 
probably justified in slaying the Egyptian who was about to 
kill the Israelite, but Moses made a mistake. Moses and Re- 
becca were both getting ahead of the! Lord. It teaches us to 
wait until we know the will of God, and that we may do a 
good deed prematurely. We may blow up a saloon with 
dynamite but God would not have us do it that way. One of 



326 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

the hardest things for a good man to learn is to wait until 
God is ready. Isaac wanted to give the blessing to Esau be- 
cause it was lawful and because he loved the big hearted 
Esau for his kindly remembrances to his blind father. Of the 
impulses that prompted Rebecca and Isaac in taking the course 
each did in this matter, I should say that Rebecca's impulse 
was the more religious, Isaac's the wiser. 

Esau married two Hittite wives when he was forty years of 
age. Jacob left Beersheba for Padanaram after that, so Jacob 
was then above forty, but how old was he? To get a start 
we must go to chapter 41 :46 when Joseph was thirty, and 
compare this with Gen. 47:9 which was nine years later, 
when Jacob was 1 30 and Joseph 39. Therefore Jacob was 
91 when Joseph was born, six years before they left Padan- 
aram (Gen. 30:25; 31:41). Then Jacob was 91 minus 
14 when he came to Padanaram, or 77 years of age. But 
the critics say that this throws us into two difficulties: First, as 
Jacob was in Padanaram seven years before he married Leah 
and Rachel it leaves but little over six years for the birth of 
Leah's seven children, if they were older than Joseph. Second,, 
the oldest of Jacob's sons could not have been thirteen years 
old and Dinah not over six when the family reached Shechem 
(Gen. 34:25, 26), and Simeon and Levi slew the Shechemites 
and rescued Dinah. But we all read things into Bible nar- 
ratives that are not there, especially do the higher critics do 
this intentionally so as to have something to fault. 

Let us examine this period in Jacob's life and see what it 
does not say as well as what it does say. It says Jacob work- 
ed fourteen years for Laban in payment for the two wives, 
and that he later worked six years for a share of the flocks and 
herds. But it does not say but that at the end of the fourteen 
years Jacob and his family may have remained with Laban a 



THE EVENTFUL LIFE OF JACOB 327 

half dozen or a score of years as a part of the clan and after- 
ward served six years for an agreed portion. Again, when 
Jacob returned to Canaan he acknowledged Esau to be the 
heir to the double portion of his father's property, and so 
Jacob was in Canaan about twenty-three years before Isaac's 
death. During most of that time he likely made his home at 
Shechem. The trouble with the Shechemites may have oc- 
curred any time during that twenty-three years after the return 
of Jacob to Canaan, and if Simeon and Levi were but ten and 
eleven years old when they reached Canaan, they may have 
been nearly or more than thirty when they rescued Dinah. It 
is also a mere assumption that all Leah's children were born the 
first seven years of her married life. Dinah may have been 
born about the end of the last six year period and Issachar and 
Zebulum but little earlier, and thus all three younger than 
Joseph. Because the Genesis writer tells about the birth of 
all Leah's children before he tells of Rachel's may not mean 
that all the former were bom before Joseph's birth any more 
than because an historian should tell about all the governors of 
Ohio before he mentioned any of those of Indiana would prove 
all the latter to follow the completed Ohio list. In other 
words, there are no difficulties in this entire account only as 
we read them into the Scripture. 

During Jacob's stay with his uncle Laban the latter took 
advantage of him and in turn Jacob used some well known na- 
tural laws to increase his flock at the expense of Laban. At 
the beginning of this six years every animal in the herds and 
flocks that had any color was placed in quarters some miles 
away under Laban's sons while Jacob had none but white ones. 
From the young of these he was to have the striped and spot- 
ted. At the end of the six years Jacob had the bulk of the 



328 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

flocks and returned to Canaan a wealthy man with many 
servants as well as cattle, sheep, camels and asses. 

When Jacob thought to flee from Padanaram, while 
Laban was on his other ranch shearing his sheep, the latter 
heard of Jacob's departure and pursued him and a week later 
overtook him half way to Canaan. Jehovah interceded for 
Jacob and the two clans patched up their difficulties and 
Laban returned home after they had convenanted together to 
be friends. It should be noted in this connection that the 
stone they set up was called one name by Jacob and another 
by Laban, showing that during the past nearly 200 years, 
since Nahor, Laban's grandfather, had come from Ur, his 
people had dropped their Hebrew and were now talking Ar- 
amaic and so while Jacob sojourned at Padanaram he would 
be somewhat a foreigner among them. 

After Laban returned home, Jacob was faced by a more 
serious trial. Hje knew he had to meet his offended brother 
Esau. The latter had, during, the past twenty or more years, 
established a station in the land of Seir and was dividing his 
time between that place and Isaac's clan. Rebecca, Esau's 
mother, evidently had made it so uncomfortable for Esau and 
his Canaanite and Ishmaelite wives that they could not remain 
with the Isaac clan, and it was yet unsettled whether Esau or 
Jacob should succeed to the head of the clan when Isaac would 
die. Jacob sent word to Esau that he was coming, but not to 
dispute Esau's right to inherit the double portion of Isaac's 
property. Jacob sent word to Esau acknowledging Esau to 
be the "lord" or ruler over Jacob in the clan. Jacob was 
constrained to seek help from Jehovah whom he met at Peniel 
and clung to him until assurances came that God would help. 
Jacob may have been a nominal worshipper of God from 
the time he saw the vision at Bethel and was fully converted 



THE EVENTFUL LIFE OF JACOB 329 

at Peniel or he may have been a child of God from Bethel 
times and here experienced a deeper consecration. He passed 
over the brook and divided his flock so some might escape if 
Esau should attack him. He arranged his wives and children 
in a manner to cause us to censure him, but if we knew all the 
circumstances it may have been done partly to favor the 
younger children in case of a conflict. Jacob succeeded in ap- 
peasing Esau's wrath by his promises and his gifts. Esau re- 
turned to his home and Jacob crossed the Jordan more than 
half way down toward the Dead sea and after a halt in tents, 
only for a rest, probably, he journeyed on to Shechem where 
he bought a parcel of ground, built an altar and likely made 
that place his headquarters for many years until his father's 
death. 

When Esau left Jacob at Peniel it was understood that on 
Isaac's death the twin brothers were to join forces under Esau 
at Seir. Jacob understood better than this, but as he and his 
mother had already done too much in trying to help God take 
care of this matter, therefore Jacob was willing to wait. The 
three families were friendly though separated, Esau in Seir, 
Jacob at Shechem and Isaac at Beersheba, or possibly at He- 
bron. Jacob no doubt often visited his aged father for we find 
Rebecca's nurse Deborah helping care for Jacob's children 
and dying while with Jacob's family. While living at Shechem 
we find Jacob moving about in his tent, first at Bethel, then 
near Bethlehem, where Rachel died, and even as far down 
as Hebron where he was when Joseph was sent up in the 
Shechem neighborhood to see how things were coming on at 
home. 

When Jacob arrived in Canaan from Padanaram he had 
eleven sons and one daughter. It is generally thought Benja- 
min was born soon after coming into Canaan. I do not think 



330 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

so. If he was born the year they reached Canaan he was but 
six years younger than Joseph. But he seems to have been 
a mere lad when, with his brothers, he met Joseph in Egypt on 
their second trip for corn. But Joseph was then thirty-nine 
years of age. Was Benjamin thirty-three? I think not. I 
think Benjamin was expected in the family before Joseph was 
sold but was born shortly afterward. The loss of Joseph 
probably caused Rachel's death and prompted her on her 
death-bed to name the new born son Benoni which means 
trouble. There are but two or three things that militate 
against this late date for Benjamin's birth: 

First, Joseph saw eleven stars in his dream. But Joseph did 
not make this vision, it was God and there may have been other 
things in it that Joseph did not understand. 

Second, Joseph's brothers told Jacob that Joseph asked 
them if they did not have another brother, but I think they 
were misstating the facts a little, as the first mention of Ben- 
jamin to Joseph (Gen. 42:13) was the telling by them to 
him that they had such a younger brother at home. 

Third, that Benjamin was already father of several sons 
when he went to Egypt as a part of the 70 who went down 
there, and therefore must have been born very soon after 
Jacob's coming into Canaan as that was but about thirty- 
three years prior to their going into Egypt. But I reply that 
this list of 70 who went into Egypt was not made up till sev- 
eral years after going to Egypt and it is not meant that each 
of this 70 went into Egypt but that, as heads of families, or 
prominent officials, they were in Egypt as a result of Jacob's 
going there. 

Some time between Jacob's coming into Canaan and Isaac s 
death, about twenty-three years, Esau and Jacob came to an 
understanding that Esau was to take the double portion and re- 



THE EVENTFUL LIFE OF JACOB 331 

tire permanently (Gen. 36:6) to Seir while Jacob was to be 
head of the Hebrew clan and remain in Canaan. Then Jacob 
took up his residence at Hebron (possibly Beersheba), after 
the death of Isaac. 

It is not certain when Leah died; if after they all went to 
Egypt, her body was brought up to Canaan for burial (Gen- 
esis 49:31), but she was probably dead before the removal 
to Egypt. 

Jacob was 1 30 years of age when he met Pharaoh and, 
after living in Goshen seventeen years, died at the age of 147. 
His life was full of troubles, trials and disappointments. He 
had to flee like a fugitive to keep his brother from killing him, 
leaving his home and all that was dear to him. He likely 
never saw his mother again. His uncle deceived and ill- 
treated him and he was compelled to flee a second time. On 
his way back he was pursued by his father-in-law and his in- 
furiated brother and taxed his resources to escape a serious 
conflict. His sons and daughter proved very unworthy. Their 
wrong doing disturbed him again and again. His beloved 
wife was early taken away from him and the son on whom 
his chief hopes depended was reported killed by wild beasts. 
A famine brought on still greater troubles and he finally died, 
a stranger in a strange land, with the assurance that his 
descendants would be slaves for a period in Egypt. 

And yet with all his crookedness Jacob is one of the great- 
est characters of Genesis. Amidst all his faults and failures he 
trusted God who never for a moment forsook him. This latter 
fact is a great encouragement for all those who, like Jacob, 
meet the hard places in life. 



CHAPTER X. 

JOSEPH AND HIS BRETHREN. 

One of the things that go far in convincing us that Genesis 
is no ordinary oriental book, is the fact that it does not make 
heroes out of its most noted men, nor do its most useful and 
perfect characters become gods, as do those depicted in the 
ancient mythology or history of other countries. This is an- 
other reason why sensible men cannot accept the theory that 
Genesis is copied from Babylonian myths. Neither can it 
be drawn from the Genesis stories that the Hebrew idea of 
monotheism is a development from polytheism; just the oppo- 
site, polytheism degenerated from a former monotheism. Gen- 
esis does not present us a single perfect human character. 
Joseph came nearest unless it be Enoch of whom too little is 
said to form an opinion. 

Joseph inherited the beauty of his mother, the religious 
fervor of his father, the gentleness of his grandfather Isaac and 
the faith of his great ancestor Abraham. He had the good 
traits of all of them but none of their faults. He was loving, 
obedient, trustworthy, sagacious, industrious, hopeful. He had 
none of the deceitfulness of his father nor the degeneracy or 
untrustworthiness of his brothers. Joseph is about the cleanest 
character portrayed in the Old Testament. He was born in 
Padanaram when his father was 9 1 , and he came with the 
family to Canaan at the age of six years, and eleven years 
later was sold or stolen into Egypt. He was a slave several 
years and because he refused to betray his Egyptian master, 
who had great confidence in him, he was thrown into prison 
where he remained considerably more than two years. After 
being a slave and a prisoner thirteen years, by reason of his in- 
terpretation of dreams for the baker and the butler, he was 



JOSEPH AND HIS BRETHREN 333 

taken out of prison to explain the dreams of Pharaoh. Then 
at the age of thirty, he was made second ruler of all Egypt in 
order to gather and store the wheat and other grains during 
the seven years of plenty. After the seven plenteous years 
and two of the famine years were past, Jacob in Canaan, also 
suffering from famine, was constrained to send ten of his sons 
to Egypt for wheat. As Jacob had always considered Rachel 
the wife of his choice and had intended making her son Joseph 
his heir (1 Chron. 5:2), until Jacob thought him dead, there- 
fore Benjamin, only a boy, possibly twenty-two years old, had 
taken Joseph's place in the affections of his father and was 
retained at home for fear some evil might befall him. It 
seemed that Jacob always distrusted his older sons and doubt- 
less had some misgivings as to their story of Joseph's disap- 
pearance; but more about this elsewhere. 

On their second visit to Egypt for wheat, Benjamin being 
along, Joseph made himself known to them and made arrange- 
ments for bringing his father, together with the entire clan and 
all their live stock, to Egypt, to remain, at least during the re- 
mainder of the famine years. Through Joseph, Pharaoh as- 
signed the land of Goshen, or Rameses, to be their dwelling 
place. Jacob sent Judah, now his most trusted son at home, 
ahead to confer with Joseph and have everything in readiness 
for the family and flocks when they would arrive. Joseph went 
out to meet his aged father whom he had not seen for twenty- 
two years, and the joy of that meeting has never been described 
in words. 

This going of the children of Jacob into Egypt was just 
2 1 5 years after the call of Abraham and exactly 2 1 5 years be- 
fore their Exodus from Egypt, Joseph was now thirty-nine 
years of age and as he lived to be 11 0, and without doubt re- 
tained his standing with the Pharaohs, he was in a position to 



334 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

see that his people in Goshen were royally treated. We are 
quite sure also that the Shepherd kings were now reigning in 
that part of Egypt and as they were Asiatics, like the He- 
brews, this would be an additional reason for the prosperity 
of the Hebrews. 

Joseph understood, as Jacob did, that God had revealed to 
Abraham, years before this, how the Israelites were to be en- 
slaved in Egypt and afterwards returned to Canaan, so he re- 
quested that his body be embalmed and carried with them to 
Canaan. This was done and he was buried in the ground that 
Jacob had purchased from the Shechemites, that place being 
within the boundaries of the tribe of Ephraim, Joseph's son. 

There are some things connected with the story of Joseph's 
life I desire to comment upon: 

When Jacob sent Joseph from the vale of Hebrpn, where 
Jacob was temporarily camping, to their home at Shechem to 
see how the boys were coming on with the flocks, Joseph had 
to go on north to Dothan to find them. They saw him com- 
ing and, as they were jealous of him, it was suggested that they 
put him to death. Reuben, the eldest, and the one wTiom 
Jacob might therefore hold most responsible, suggested putting 
him in a dry cistern, his intention being to release him. But as 
they were eating their meal they saw, in the distance, some 
Ishmaelites coming and Judah proposed that it would be better 
to sell Joseph to them rather than kill him. The usual explana- 
tion of occurrences following this is that this band of traders, 
Midianites and Ishmaelites commingled, came on up and that 
while Reuben was absent the other brothers sold Joseph to the 
Ishmaelites, the Midianites drawing him out of the cistern and 
later, called Medanites, selling him, on reaching Egypt, to 
Potiphar; that Reuben returned to the pit and was surprised 
that Joseph was gone. The brothers, Reuben included, then 



JOSEPH AND HIS BRETHREN 335 

fixed up a story about Joseph being slain by a wild) beast and 
showed Joseph's long sleeved coat that had been dipped in 
goat's blood as a proof of the truth of their story. 

I doubt whether this is what Genesis wants to tell us. May 
not this be a better explanation? After they had placed Jo- 
seph in the pit and while they all, Reuben included, were some 
distance away eating their meal and waiting for the Ishmaelites 
to approach, there came that way some Midianites who dis- 
covered Joseph, drew him out and sold him to the Ishmaelites 
who carried him to Egypt, the word "Medanites" (Gen. 
37:36) to be translated merchantmen, as it is by some trans- 
lators. This would explain why Reuben joined with the others 
in fabricating the story told his father for he could not ex- 
plain his intention to release him, having helped put him in 
the pit. It is never after this time hinted that the brothers 
knew he had been carred away captive. They always spoke 
of him as being dead (Gen. 44:20). Joseph told the butler 
he was stolen away from his people and though he said to his 
brothers that they sold him that may have meant only that they 
were primarily the cause of his being sold. This version of the 
story is much more natural, but I scarcely expect it to be gen- 
erally received in place of the long accepted explanation. 

Joseph has been censured for being so gruff to his brothers, 
but as he later shows that he did not harbor the least resent- 
ment against them, his conduct calls for some comment. When 
Joseph knew his brothers at home they were bad men. He had 
informed his father of their misdeeds and he knew they were 
wicked enough to kill him or sell him when he was but an in- 
nocent helpless boy. Had they grown more wicked since? 
Had they mistreated his aged father and, if Joseph knew he 
had a little brother, or that one was expected, had they also 
slain him? Joseph wanted to bring his father's entire family 



336 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

to Egypt, but he must know first the sort of men his brethren 
had grown into. Did he want them in Egypt? He must 
therefore test them, Were they honest? Were they truthful? 
Were they lying about having a younger brother living? So 
he tested them; he put their money in the sacks to see what 
they would do with it. He held Simeon until they returned 
with Benjamin as a proof of their truthfulness. When they 
returned with the money and with Benjamin he was satisfied 
on these points, but would they play fair with little Benjamin 
if difficulties overtook the boy? He tested them again. Ben- 
jamin was found with Joseph's cup in his sack and Joseph 
said that he would make him a slave and that the rest of them 
might return home. This was the supreme test of their loyalty 
to that aged father, who was pacing the floor at home and 
passing many sleepless nights waiting the outcome of this 
second awful trip to Egypt. Now stepped forward Judah 
who had, during these years, developed into a noble man, after 
a youth of sin. Let the lad return to his father and keep me a 
slave, said Judah. He could not bear to again pierce the 
heart of his aged father. Joseph was satisfied. He drove out 
the Egyptians and, weeping on the necks of all his brothers, 
kissed them and made himself known to them. 

In all the realms of literature there is nothing grander than 
this speech of Judah and Joseph's reply and the lovely at- 
titude Joseph assumed toward those that had wronged him. In 
this he was certainly a type of Him who came 1,700 years 
later, yonder in Bethlehem of Judea. 



CHAPTER XL 

THE SOJOURN IN EGYPT. 

The children of Israel were in Egypt 215 years. They 
were in actual bondage but a small part of that time. Joseph 
lived seventy-one years after the Israelites went into Egypt 
and they were treated royally during all that time, and for 
some years longer until a king arose '"who knew not Joseph." 
When was that? I think it was when the native Egyptians 
overthrew the Hyksos, or Shepherd kings, generally believed 
to be about 1 600 B.C. If so, and if Ussher is correct in 
saying the Exodus was 1491 B. C, then the oppression only 
lasted between those dates, or a little more than 100 years. 

It is wonderful how God times his deliverances. Moses 
was born eighty years before the Exodus. This would place 
his birth 1571 B. C. I should not be surprised to have it 
proven, some day, that Moses, the deliverer, was born the 
very year that Tahutmes I began the oppression, and God ap- 
pointed the latter and his daughter to rear, educate and train 
the deliverer of these enslaved people! There are some 
things that point to this. Aaron was born three years before 
Moses. We hear of no attempt to slay him, so the new edict 
by the new king was after the birth of Aaron and before the 
birth of Moses. 

Of the sixty-four years between Joseph's death and Moses' 
birth we know nothing, but as the Hebrews were under the 
friendly Shepherd kings, they no doubt multiplied greatly and 
were prosperous. Some of Joseph's brothers outlived him, 
one at least, Levi, who died at the age of 137. He could 
not, by the usual interpretation, have been born more than 
three years before Joseph, so he must have been living about 



338 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

twenty-four years after Joseph died. Levi's son Kohath lived 
1 33 years and his son, Amram, who was Moses' father, lived 
1 3 7 years, but no doubt died before the Exodus. God told 
Abraham that his descendants should go into bondage during 
four generations which were Levi, Kohath, Amram and 
Moses, as well as many other four family generations like this 
one. 

Is it possible for seventy persons to grow into nearly three 
million in 215 years? Yes, the like has happened many, 
many times. The English colonies in America grew from a 
few settlers in 1 607 to more than three million in the suc- 
ceeding 2 1 5 years. But you say the American colonies ab- 
sorbed thousands of immigrants. Certainly, so did Israel. 
Jacob had possibly scores of slaves and servants when he left 
Padanaram (Gen. 30:43) and to these he joined possibly 
hundreds of his share of his father Isaac's clan. Jacob's 
sons all married wives doubtless outside his clan and I have 
no doubt but that accretions were coming to the Israelites all 
the while they were in Goshen. So long as they came as 
converts to the Hebrew religion and became assimilated into 
the nation, that was all that was required. The same took 
place after the Exodus, for example the Kenites (Judges 
1:16). Instead of seventy persons going into Egypt there 
may have been hundreds, not all descendants of Jacob, but 
cemented together into one common people under the patriarch 
Jacob. Indeed, the seventy, so often mentioned as going into 
Egypt went only in the sense of being the representatives of 
divisions, these representatives coming into Egypt from the 
"loins of Jacob" either before or after his going to Egypt. 
Reuben probably had but two sons before going to Egypt 
(Gen. 42:37) but two others are counted (Gen. 46:9). 
Hezron and Hamul (Gen. 46:12) could not have been born 



THE SOJOURN IN EGYPT 339 

before the going into Egypt. Benjamin's ten sons could not 
have been born in Canaan as he himself was but a lad on leav- 
ing Canaan. So there is no doubt but this list of seventy was 
made up, showing certain heads of divisions, about the time 
of Jacob's death or even later, and those unborn when Jacob 
came into Egypt were in Jacob's loins just as Levi is said 
(Heb. 7:9-10) to have paid tithes in Abraham. 

While more than seventy, including servants and slaves, 
went into Egypt, it is possible a mistranslation of the word 
"thousands" (first chapter of Numbers) has led us to think 
more Israelites went through the wilderness than actually did 
go, but I explain this elsewhere. 

In this connection I desire to call attention to the apparent 
discrepancy between Genesis 46:27, where the number going 
into Egypt is seventy, while Acts 7:14 gives it as seventy-five. 
This is an additional proof that the Genesis list was made up 
by Jacob or Joseph, but afterward sons were born to Ephraim 
and Manasseh, who had been adopted by Jacob as his sons, 
and they, no doubt, demanded to be recognized as heads of 
families. In Numbers, 26th chapter, these grandsons of 
Joseph are named and also in I Chron., 7th chapter. This 
increased the number to seventy-five and is so given in the 
Septuagint translation of Exodus 1 :5 as seventy-five, and it 
may have been the same in all ancient copies of Exodus. 

God planned to have the Israelites located in Goshen for 
2 1 5 years that, thus surrounded and hemmed in, they might 
grow into one homogeneous nation, believing in one God and 
growing strong enough to stand up in the face of opposition 
in the promised land when they should be led into it. The 
native Egyptians who hated Israel would not mingle much with 
them nor did Israel at all assimilate with or become Egyptians 
while residing there. Then, too, the friendly Shepherd kings 



340 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

protected them against enemies, and later they had the same 
protection from their masters in slavery, while God with in- 
visible hand was all the time shaping their destiny. 

A good many hold the idea that Israel was in Egypt 430 
years. I do not believe the Scriptures carry out that idea. 
There is a passage or two that by themselves might be so 
construed but not necessarily so, while there are others that 
absolutely preclude the idea that they were there 430 years. 
To begin with, the genealogical line from Levi to Moses makes 
it absolutely impossible that there could have been 430 years, 
unless you throw this chronological list away entirely (see 
table No. 2). The first mention of the bondage period is 
Gen. 15:13, which doubtless means that Abraham's race 
should be without a country for 400 years, a round number, 
and actually about 400 years from that time. Acts 7:6 
speaks of the sojourn or wanderings without a home for the 
same round number 400, while Gal. 3:17 definitely states that 
this 430 years began with the promise made to Abraham. 
The only other passage is Ex. 12:40 which is sometimes trans- 
lated, "The sojourn of the children of Israel who dwelt in 
Egypt was 430 years," and is so translated in the King James 
Version, and the Septuagint makes it still plainer that Ex. 
12:40 means 430 years from Abraham's call to the Exodus, 
and likewise is the ancient Samaritan Pentateuch. 

Anstey, the best authority in England, a fine Hebrew 
scholar, p. 128, says, "The Hebrew of Ex. 12:40 is ac- 
curately rendered in the Authorized Version (St. James). It 
is not accurately rendered in the Revised Version," and on the 
next page he says, "The exact rendering of the Hebrew gives 
215 years for the sojourn in Egypt and cannot possibly be 
made to give anything else." 



CHAPTER XII. 

EGYPTIAN DATES AND THE BONDAGE PERIOD. 

Every reader of Genesis and Exodus has had his troubles 
with the chronology of Egypt, as it relates to the time the 
Israelites sojourned there, and that of the Exodus as well. 
There is now evidence in abundance to prove that Israel was 
in Egypt and passed out through the wilderness. Inscriptions 
have been found; that very probably refer to Jacob himself as 
well as to Joseph and Moses, while there is no dispute at all 
now as to the names of places where the Israelites resided and 
built for the Egyptians such store cities as Rameses and 
Pithom. Inscriptions also have been found about the corn 
famine of Joseph's time and pictures of the Israelite brick mak- 
ers being driven to their work by task masters, and even the 
bricks, some with straw and some without, have been un- 
earthed. 

But who were the Pharaohs of the bondage period and at 
what date was Israel in Egypt? Can we arrive at anything 
definite as to these things? 

Ussher gives 1491 B. C. as the date of the Exodus. Add 
215 years to this and we have 1 706 B. C. as about the date 
when Jacob and his clan took possession of the land of Goshen. 
Everything shows us that the Israelites were royally treated the 
first part of this 2 1 5 years and enslaved the later part. Why? 
Because the Egyptian dynasties had changed. A concensus 
of Egyptian history tells us that the Hyksos, an Asiatic people, 
ruled in lower Egypt several hundred years and were driven 
out by the native Egyptians about 1600 B. C. The new 
dynasty was the 18th and its first Pharaoh was Ahmes. 

In Part I, I gave the Pharaohs of the 1 8th dynasty, from its 



342 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

beginning until Amenhotep IV began his reign. I also proved 
that we must add forty-four years to each date, as given by 
Petrie in that table, to make these dates more nearly accurate. 
The same list as corrected is as follows: 

Ahmes began to reign 1631 B. C. 

Amenhotep I began to reign 1606 B. C. 

Tahutmes I began to reign 1585 B. C. 

Tahutmes II began to reign 1560 B. C. 

Tahutmes III began to reign 1525 B. C. 

Amenhotep II began to reign 1493 B. C. 

Tahutmes IV began to reign 1467 B. C. 

Amenhotep III began to reign........! 458 B. C. 

Amenhotep IV began to reign 1427 B. C. 

This list is interesting because these Pharaohs lived at the 
times when Moses and Joshua lived, and we shall see that 
some of these figured prominently in those ancient Bible times. 

Moses was born eighty years before the Exodus, in the 
year 1571 B. C. By glancing at the table we see that 
Tahutmes I was reigning at that time. History tells us he 
had a daughter Hatshepsut, or Hatasu, who was twenty-six 
years old when her father died (Petrie vol. 2, p. 54). She 
was, therefore, fifteen years old when Moses was born and 
was very likely the "daughter of Pharaoh" (Ex. 2:5) who 
came down to the river to bathe and found Moses in the bas- 
ket. She grew into the most brilliant woman that Egypt ever 
produced. No wonder her adopted son, Moses, "was learned 
in all the wisdom of the Egyptians." This woman had a 
brother Tahutmes II, who was heir to the throne, but he was 
a weakling, and so his father had Hatshepsut, who was older, 
to m*>rry this heir-apparent. Thus she became the real ruler, 
and sht outlived him. 



DATE OF BONDAGE PERIOD 



343 



Her step-son Tahutmes III, was the next Pharaoh, but he 
was only a boy and Hatshepsut continued to rule until he be- 
came a man, and it is probable that he put her to death to 




HATSHEPSUT 

get rid of her. Then it was that Moses fled to the land of 
Midian. He had two reasons for fleeing: because his foster 
mother was dead, and her enemy on the throne, and because 
of his killing the Egyptian. (Ex. 2:14,15). 

Tahutmes III was a great man and it was he who oppressed 
the Israelites so severely. It was from his reign we have the 
picture of the Israelites making bricks under task masters. He 
died in 1493, two years before the Exodus (Ex. 2:23) and 
this cleared the way for Moses to return, which he probably 
did the next year, the ten plagues occupying almost a whole 
year until the Exodus in 1491 B. C. Ancient bricks have 
been found near Cairo bearing the name of Tahutmes III. 
Anderson, p. 60, says, "A wall painting at Thebes shows 



344 



NAAMAH AND NIMROD 



captives making bricks, who are assumed by some writers to 
be Jewish by their features, but the date is 150 years before 
the time of Rameses II." That statement places this pic- 
ture precisely right to make Tahutmes the oppressor. I re- 
produce the picture here. 



CjpB^sasrsriiwr. 




ISRAELITES MAKING BRICKS FOR TAHUTMES III 



The bricks were discovered by Naville. They were sun- 
dried, and some were mixed with straw and some were not. 
Naville regards some strawless bricks he found as those made 
by the Israelites when Pharaoh said, "I will not give you 
straw.'* 

Tahutmes III was succeeded in 1493 by Amenhotep II, 
who reigned twenty-six years, and therefore he was the Phar- 
aoh of the Exodus. 

I have very many good historians, and some not so good, 
on my side in placing these occurrences in the reigns of these 
monarchs. Josephus says Amenhotep II was the Pharaoh of 
the Exodus. Prof. Clay, one of the most learned archaeolo- 
gists o* our day, on p. 271, says, "Tahutmes III in every re- 
spect fulfills the requirements of the character of the oppres- 

»* 

sor. 

Hoskins, the great traveler and author, on p. 83 of his 



DATE OF BONDAGE PERIOD 345 

From Nile to Nebo, says, "Tahutmes I was king of Egypt 
when Moses was born" and on the same page, ,T This king had 
a daughter named Hatshepsut, one of the truly remarkable 
women of all time," and "The events of Moses' early life and 
this Hatshepsut fit together most remarkably." This author 
says, "Tahutmes III hated her so that he erased her name from 
all the monuments" and "Her partisans doubtless all fled," at 
her death. This is when Moses fled to Midian. This author 
also says the Exodus took place in the reign of Amenhotep II, 
and even old Manetho says the "lepers were expelled" in the 
reign of this king. By lepers he means Israel. Therefore 
Amenhotep II was the Pharaoh whose horsemen pursued Israel 
into the Red Sea and perished. The Pharaohs of the 18th 
dynasty generally had their capital at Thebes, but the monu- 
ments give Amenhotep II the title of "Ruler of Heliopolis" 
which city was near Goshen. 

Forty years after the Exodus, in 1 45 1 , Joshua crossed over 
the Jordan and began the conquest of Canaan. A glance at 
the table shows that Amenhotep III was the Pharaoh at that 
time, and it was to him some of those Amarna letters were 
written from Jerusalem, telling him that the Hebrews were be- 
ginning to overrun the land (Breasted, p. 263; Enc. Bri. t vol. 
IX, p. 84). These Hebrews were still conquering Palestine 
after Amenhotep IV; took the throne, but he never was able 
to send help to the Canaanites. 

To ask the names of the Hyksos kings who ruled before 
the 1 8th dynasty came in is! to ask what you are not likely to 
get. When the native Egyptians overthrew the Hyksos they 
destroyed every record of that despised race, that they could 
get their hands on, and we do not know yet who the Hyksos 
were. Some think they were Phoenicians, Hittites, Tartars 
or Arabians, They may not have been any of these. They 



346 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

established their capital on the very| northern border of Egypt 
at Avaris near the land of Goshen. They were Asiatics and 
were called Hyksos, or Shepherd kings. Here and there have 
been found the names of a few of these rulers : Apophis, Khian, 
Khenzer, etc. But who the Pharaoh was when Abraham or 
Joseph went to Egypt is seemingly past finding out, although 
Joseph's Pharaoh is said to have been Apophis. 

I do not want to be understood as saying that the date 
of the 18th dynasty, 1631 B. C, is an established Egyptian 
date, for I do not believe there is any certain Egyptian date 
back of 1000 B. C, certainly none back of the Amarna 
period. 

The recent discovery of the ruins of Pithom and Rameses 
(Ex. 1:11) by Naville, with the inscription that they were 
built during the reign of Rameses II, who reigned much later 
than 1491 B. C, has caused the tongues of the critics to wag 
afresh, and some historians now put the date of the Exodus 
as late as 1 300 B. C. But there is not a shadow of a doubt 
but that this late date is wrong and that these two store cities, 
Rameses and Pithom, were built in the 15 th century, but re- 
built and renamed by Rameses, as it is also known that this 
king was in the habit of even chiseling off the names of former 
builders of monuments and having his own name inscribed. 
The late date is entirely upset also by the Tel el-Amarna let- 
ters which show the Hebrews to have reached Canaan long be- 
fore Rameses rebuilt these cities. 



CHAPTER XIII. 

ESAU AND HIS DESCENDANTS. 

The 36th chapter of Genesis is the least interesting chapter 
in the entire book of Genesis to us, but not so to the ancient 
Israelites. For one thousand years the children of Esau were 
intimately associated with Israel. Both Jacob and Esau were 
descendants of Abraham, and Esau, the father of the Edom- 
ites, was one of the most important personages of his day. 

This 36th chapter concerning Esau has given the critics 
occasion to say some mean things about Genesis. Wellhausen, 
one of the most noted of the higher critics, in speaking of the 
differing names of Esau's wives, says, "this is the worst con- 
tradiction in all Genesis." They tell us also that the entire 
chapter is a jumble of unnecessary repetitions and contradic- 
tions. We may never be able to understand the tribal divi- 
sions in this chapter nor the varying names for the same per- 
son, but the writer of this chapter understood it all or he would 
have written it in a different manner. Whoever wrote the 
book of Genesis was an exceedingly smart man to know all 
the history he did of countries, peoples, animals and plants. 
If the author of Genesis lived a thousand years after Moses he 
would have to be a thousand times smarter and better read than 
Moses, for he was so far removed from the scene. If either 
Moses or a late redactor wrote Genesis, he was too smart to 
make such a blunder as to get his names of Esau's wives con- 
fused. He understood it whether we do or not. 

A thousand years from now in reading a chapter in French 
history the same criticism might be made, that in some places 
the ruler is called Emperor, Napoleon or Bonaparte, and 
his wife might be Josephine or Maria. A chapter on English 



348 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

history might credit the success of the battle of Waterloo to 
the Duke or to Wellington and on some other page the same 
deed of valor credited to Wellesley. To those who know all 
the facts, there are no contradictions ; so it is with this chapter 
concerning Esau. 

Esau had two Canaanite wives. In one place one of them 
is said to be a Hiveite, and in another place a Hittite. Her 
father may have been a Hiveite living among the Hittites, so he 
would belong to both. One wife is the daughter of Beri in 
one place and Anah in another place. The Hebrew used 
the words daughter, son, etc., more loosely than we do so that 
one of these may have been father and the other grandfather, 
or these may have been Hebrew, Hittite or Hiveite names 
for the same man. Again, the wives themselves are not al- 
ways called by the same names. The reason for that might 
have been as plain in that day as Jack, John or Ivan is to us. 
Esau was a Hebrew, his wives were Hittites and they after- 
ward became Seirites. Their names would have to be different 
in all these languages. The only wonder is that they knew 
their own names. The man who will throw Genesis away 
because he gets mixed on Esau's wives will also burn down the 
apothecary shop because they hand him out sodium chloride 
when he asks for table salt. 

When Esau was forty years of age he married two Canaanite 
women and later an Ishmaelite. Esau's mother hated these 
wives of Esau, therefore he went over east of the Dead Sea 
and established a home, and doubtless divided his time be- 
tween Seir and Canaan. His children were born while he 
was thus attached to both clans but not necessarily in Canaan. 
He considered Canaan his home, or "place to vote," we would 
say. After Isaac's death Esau went to stay at his eastern 
home among the Horites which word- means cave dwellers. 



ESAU AND HIS DESCENDANTS 349 

These Horites were Canaanites and dwelt in Mount Seir and 
were also called Seirites. Deuteronomy 2:12, 22 tells us 
that Esau overcame these Seirites and dominated their country, 
and as Esau's other name was Edom, it was not long until 
the country was called Edom and was so known for a thousand 
years and more. 

Now this 36th chapter gives several lists of Esau's people, 
why? First comes Esau's family before he joined the Seir- 
ites. Another list is that of the Seirites or Horites before they 
joined with Esau. Still another list is a later one of the two 
peoples united and still another of certain rulers or petty kings. 
The real meaning of the Edomite word "Alluph" in the orig- 
inal, is unknown. It is translated "duke" in the King James 
version and "chief" in the Revised version. 

We meet with these children of Edom in the Wilderness 
and almost unceasingly from that time on down through Jew- 
ish history until the time of Christ when the Herods, who were 
Edomites, ruled in Galilee and Perea. They were an exceed- 
ingly interesting people to the Children of Israel, and to have 
left this chapter out of Genesis would have been as great a 
blunder on Moses' part, as it would be for us to omit all 
mention of the Mexicans. This chapter about Esau is not of 
much concern to us, except it gives the critics something to 
growl about. 



CHAPTER XIV. 

THE BATTLE GROUND AND VICTORY. 

The 14th chapter of Genesis is the scene, not only of the 
first battle narrated in scripture, but of one of the first battles 
of the skeptics against the genuineness of Bible history. 

Here is an account of four strange-named kings from the 
far East, coming more than a thousand miles to fight against 
some petty kings in the valley adjacent to the Dead Sea. The 
skeptics said it was all nonsense; there were no such kings, 
that Abraham and Lot were fictitious characters to begin 
with and that no such raid likely ever had taken place. It was 
so far back, nearly 2,000 years before Christ; skeptics said 
there was not a real name in the entire list, and that it was not 
history at all. But, behold, about the time the last skeptic had 
cast a stone at this chapter and the higher critics had condemn- 
ed it as unhistorical, some archaeologists, digging into the ruins 
of an ancient city in the Euphrates valley, came across the 
names of these kings of the East. The critics had also point- 
ed to an apparent disagreement between the first verse and the 
fifth because Amraphel is put foremost in one and Chedorlao- 
mer in the other. This is all very plain now. Archaeology 
shows Amraphel to be the big man among these kings, but as 
yet he is serving the king of Elam. Later he conquers all that 
region and holds sway to the Mediterranean under the name 
of Hammurabi, probably at the time Abraham made note of 
this event. 

E. J. Banks, the archaeologist, p. 54, says, "The four 
kings were not mythical characters of a mythical alliance; they 
were real kings who fought real wars, and the biblical chapter, 
telling us of this, is real history." 

Thus this entire chapter becomes historical. Every man 



BATTLE GROUND AND VICTORY 351 

who had, before this archaeological discovery, criticized this 
chapter should have been manly enough to say that Abraham, 
Lot and Melchizedek were now proven historical characters, 
since the most improbable names of all, the kings from one 
thousand miles away, had been proven real characters. It 
has recently been proven, too, that Amraphel, or Hammurabi, 
lived at the precise date given by Ussher for Abraham. 

It is highly probable that at the time of this battle, between 
the four eastern kings and the five kings of the vale of Siddim, 
there was no southern extension to the Dead sea as there is now. 
The entire sea possibly now fills a basin formed at that time, 
the Jordan formerly losing itself in the sandy desert or empty- 
ing into the Gulf of Akabah. Later when the cities of this 
plain were destroyed by an earthquake and oil and gas ex- 
plosion (Gen. 19:25) the ground sank down forming the 
present bed of the Dead, or Salt Sea, as it is called in the 3rd 
verse. The surface of the Dead Sea is lower than that of 
any other body of water on the earth, it being 1 ,300 feet be- 
low sea level. The geological formation there shows that it 
is subject to earthquakes and there even now exude, from fis- 
sures in the ground and from the bottom of the sea, great 
masses of bitumen. 

Dr. Manning's Palestine Illustrated, p. 59, says, "At some 
remote period beyond the range of history or tradition, the 
Jordan seems to have flowed onward over what is now the 
elevated valley of Arabah into the Red Sea." 

This 14th chapter of Genesis tells of that mysterious priest- 
king Melchizedek who came out to meet Abraham as he re- 
turned from rescuing Lot. He was king of Salem, no doubt, 
Uru Salem of the Tel el-Amarna letters, the Jerusalem of 
David's time and later. This man Melchizedek was a wor- 
shipper of the true God and Abraham looked upon him as a 



352 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

great and good man and in recognition of his priestly character 
gave tithes to him. The Amarna tablet letters also throw 
light on the words, "without father, without mother" (Heb. 
7:3). They show that there was a peculiar line of kings 
reigning at Salem, appointed by the king of Egypt, possibly be- 
cause of their priestly character, but it was not a hereditary 
line. One of these kings in speaking of himself, on these 
tablets, says: "It was not my father and it was not my mother 
who established me in this position." This simple inscription 
probably explains the mystery connected with this ancient 
personage, and that otherwise he was only an aged Amorite 
(Semite) patriarch, just as Abraham was a Hebrew patri- 
arch. That he had originally come from Armenia by way of 
Amurru is shown by the title for Deity, El Elyon, which title 
Abraham also recognized as Amorite for Jehovah. Three 
other Amorite chieftains beside Melchizedek, are Aner, Esh- 
col and Mamre, mentioned in this chapter. The ancient Jew- 
ish tradition was that Melchizedek was Shem, who was still 
living. I see no reason to believe that, yet I have no doubt but 
that Melchizedek had come from Armenia, where Shem lived, 
long before Abraham came to Palestine, and that he may 
have been named a priest by Shem, or even by Noah, and was 
therefore recognized by Abraham as a greater character than 
himself. The king of Egypt likely in deference to the priest- 
ly character of this man and his successors had made them 
kings of Salem and the kingly line thereafter for many years 
was bestowed because of this priestly t>mce and not by reason 
of birth. 

This chapter also mentions those ancient inhabitants of the 
region east and north of the Dead Sea, the Rephaim: the 
Zuzim, the Emim and Horites. Who were these people? 
They were the most ancient inhabitants of this region after the 



BATTLE GROUND AND VICTORY 353 

Flood. They were Hamitic descendants of Canaan (Gen. 
10:15). They had settled all along the Palestine coast and 
northward in defiance of God's order that they settle in Africa. 
Later the Semitic-Amorites drove them south into the moun- 
tains where many of them lived in caves. After this Esau's 
people defeated the Horites (Deut. 2:12); the Moabites 
drove out the Emim (Deut. 2:10), and the Ammonites con- 
quered the Zuzim (Deut. 2:20). 

These four kings, from the far East, first overran these 
ancient Hamites before attacking the more civilized tribes in 
the vale of Siddim. These Sodomites were likely a mixed 
Semite- Amorite people. When the Israelites, 450 years later 
under Joshua, came into Canaan they found the Canaanites, 
also called Amorites. They were still, I think, a mixed 
Semite-Hamite people but the word Amorite then meant "de- 
scendant of Ham" while in Abraham's time the same word 
meant "descendant of Shem." This I explain more fully 
elsewhere. 

The way this wonderful 14th chapter of Genesis has tri- 
umphed over the skeptics and critics, of hundreds of years 
Standing, is another of the things which establish our faith 
in Genesis as not only true to history but inspired of God and 
preserved down the ages for us. The critics have been driven 
from every position they ever occupied against the truthful- 
ness of this chapter. It is the hardest chapter in all Genesis 
for them to divide up on their E, J, JE theories. In fact it 
will not divide at all, and many critics admit they do not know 
what to do next with this chapter, in order to discredit it. 



CHAPTER XV. 

DIFFICULTIES TO BE EXPECTED. 

It is natural that we should run across difficulties in such 
an ancient book as Genesis. We do in every other book 
we pick up. It is remarkable there are so few difficulties 
in Genesis. Some things that seem to us contradictory may 
have been perfectly plain to those who lived in Bible lands 
and near to the time when these things occurred. 

An illustration of today will help make this clear. The 
published biography, of a certain man, stated on one page 
that he was born in Morgan County, Ohio, and never moved 
from the county, and that he died near where he was born. 
On another page it is told how this man lived twenty years 
in Noble County and later moved into Morgan County. Sup- 
pose these things had been stated of Jacob, how the critics 
would have pointed to this very great error. But it was all 
true. After this man had lived in Morgan County a few 
years a new county, Noble, was formed and he found himself 
in Noble county without having moved at all, and later he 
moved out of this new county back intoi Morgan. We ought 
to be as reasonable in regard to statements of a historical or 
geographical nature in Genesis as we are toward other books. 

The materials entering into Genesis were written in several 
dialects, possibly, at different times and by different men, from 
the time of Moses back to Adam, several thousand years. 
Cities, peoples and nations had come and gone. After Moses' 
time when, in the days of the judges or the kings, scribes were 
writing new copies, they no doubt often substituted a newer 
name for a more ancient one, so as to make the reading intel- 
ligible. Let me give a few possible instances: In the 14th 



DIFFICULTIES TO BE EXPECTED 355 

Chapter of Genesis Abraham pursued the invaders as far as 
"Dan," but the critics say there was no Dan until many 
years later. If so, a scribe in Samuel's time may have put in 
the newer name instead of the ancient one that had gone entire- 
ly out of use. If I were reprinting a book, gotten out in the 
earliest American colonial days, that used "New Amsterdam/' 
the ancient name for New York, I should likely substitute the 
latter name, because it makes the meaning clearer. It was 
perfectly right and proper for Bible scribes to do the same. In 
that same 14th chapter of Genesis "the country of the Amale- 
kites" is referred to, but the critics say that Amalek, from 
whom the Amalekites took their name, was not yet born (Gen. 
36:12). Abraham, or whoever wrote the original account 
of this raid, used some other name for this Amalekite country, 
but in Samuel's time these ancient people were entirely gone 
and he, or some scribe before or after him, did what anybody 
might or should have done, put in the name then in use. So 
as to customs and usages among the people — they conformed 
to that day and may therefore often be misinterpreted by us. 
Such things as these are pointed to by critics and skeptics as 
mistakes. They are not errors any more than it was an error 
when a certain historian wrote of an explorer, that he traveled 
up the coast as far as Hartford, when there was no such city 
at that place for a hundred years after that explorer visited 
the region. The Bible certainly deserves as fair treatment in 
these matters as is accorded to profane history. 



CHAPTER XVI. 

WHAT SHALL OUR DECISION BE AS TO THE BIBLE P 

I started out, at the opening of this book, with the asser- 
tion that God, who created the heavens and the earth, and so 
wonderfully fitted up the earth for man's habitation, would be 
negligent of his duty to his created intelligent human beings, 
placed here on earth, if he had not given them a written revel- 
ation. I then pointed out that there is but one book in the 
entire world that stands out preeminently as this looked for 
revelation, and that book is the Bible. 

I said that if the Bible is not God's revelation, we have 
none. We are left in the dark. But God would not leave us 
so. Therefore the presumption is that the Bible is God's revel- 
ation. I said that if any man declares that this venerable book 
is not God's Word, it devolves upon him to show that it is not, 
and it also devolves upon him to find another revelation more 
fitting to be from God; for it is unthinkable that God would 
not give us a revelation. Skeptics have never attempted to 
point us to a revelation more likely than the Bible to be from 
God. Their utter failure to even attempt to find a substitute 
for the Bible is of itself almiost an admission that it is the 
Creator's announcement to men. I also said that while these 
skeptics know better than to attempt to find God's revelation, 
other than the Bible, they do attack the Bible and attempt 
to show that it is not from God, and their main attacks are 
aimed at the book of Genesis because that is the citadel, the 
stronghold. If Genesis be overthrown the prestige of the 
Bible is gone. 

I called attention in my first words, in this book, to the 
lines of atheistic attacks upon the book of Genesis. They say 



WHAT IS OUR DECISION? 357 

Genesis is not true historically; that it disagrees with true 
science; that its chronology does not give sufficient time for the 
known historical period of man, as shown by Egyptian and 
Babylonian history; that about 6,000 years is entirely too 
short to account for prehistoric man's development from savag- 
ery; that evolution overthrows the Genesis account of man's 
origin; that such exaggerated accounts as Genesis gives of 
Creation, Eden, length of life, the Flood, Tower of Babel 
and the destruction of Sodom, are unbelievable, and that 
Moses could not have composed Genesis, but that much later 
writers wrote it and passed it off as from Moses. 

I have taken these things up, one by one, and have given in 
every instance such undeniable and impregnable facts that 
there is no ground left for these atheists and critics to stand 
upon. I have shown that real profane history does not reach 
back to the Flood, to say nothing of Creation; that Egyptian 
and Babylonian history back of 1000 B. C. is unreliable, and 
that back of 2000 B. C. it can n<ot even be guessed at from 
the monuments and inscriptions. I have shown that wherever 
an Egyptian or Babylonian date is established it always 
agrees with the Bible. I have shown conclusively that pre- 
historic man cannot be traced beyond 4000 B. C. and that 
the first men were not a lower type of humanity than the men 
of today, and therefore did not need time to develop. I have 
absolutely and conclusively shown that there is no evidence to 
show that man developed from the monkey tribe by gradual 
evolution. I have demonstrated that, in recent geological times, 
life and vegetation have presented peculiar phenomena and 
that the greater age to which man lived prior to the Flood was 
not therefore unusual. I have proven that the Deluge exactly 
agrees with what geology tells us and that this cataclysm, to- 
gether with the Babel incident, are now well known histor- 



358 NAAMAH AND NIMROD 

ical events. I have also called attention to the fact that we 
accept many historical, scientific and physiological truths or 
hypotheses much more wonderful than any of the so called ex- 
aggerations of Genesis, and I have shown the absurdity of 
claiming that anybody later than Moses wrote Genesis or any 
material of the Pentateuch. 

Should not all this strengthen and establish the faith of all 
God's people, as to the authenticity and reliability of Genesis, 
and thus confirm their faith in the entire Bible? What ex- 
cuse can sensible and genuine searchers after God have for 
rejecting the Bible, as God's revelation to man, or why look 
farther in search of such a revelation? What else in this 
life rests on a surer foundation than the Bible? If now after 
all this array of facts, going to establish the Bible as God's 
revelation, you still refuse to receive it or obey it, what is 
there in this life you can accept? 



I stood at evening by the smithy door, 

To hear the anvil ring the vesper chime, 
And looking down I saw, upon the floor, 

Old hammers worn with beating years of time. 

"How many anvils have yom had," said I, 
"To wear and batter all the hammers so?" 

"Just one," he answered, "and the reason why, 

The anvil wears the hammers out, you'd know?" 

The anvil of God's everlasting Word, 

For ages skeptic blows have beat upon; 
Old Nimrod sparks were seen, Voltaire noise heard — 

The Anvil is unworn, the hammers gone! 

Apprentice blows of ignorance, forsooth, 

Make blunder sounds and blinding sparks death-whirled; 
The Master holds and turns the iron, His Truth, 

Love, shapes it as He wills to bless the world. 

Modified from L. B. C. 



, 



I 

■■<& I 

2 



J 



Vj 






BS 




PreservationTechnologie 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATIO 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-21 1 1 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 





014 327 694 6 # 



■Ml 



mm 



■HH 



M 



pa 



■liiilil 



■UP 



